Teaching Hydraulics and Hydraulic Structure

Design with Leonardo da Vinci

Michele Palermo, Aff.M.ASCE 1; and Simone Pagliara 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Leonardo da Vinci is a fascinating and inspiring person, and is called a universal genius for his large variety of scientific and
artistic interests and contributions, including military engineering, sculpture, painting, astronomy, botany, anatomy, solid mechanics, and so
forth. One of his main interests was hydraulics. He made fundamental contributions to our field, and some of his inventions and intuitions
continue to challenge hydraulic engineers and researchers. Probably everyone has come across one of his beautiful drawings. However, most
ignore the fact that those drawings represent the effort of a human being to understand the governing laws of physical phenomena. In fact,
each drawing can be considered a comprehensive representation of hydraulic phenomena, because they furnish insight into physics and
stimulate future developments. Inspired by drawings of Leonardo, this paper illustrated an inductive–deductive methodology to teach hy-
draulics and the modern design of hydraulic structures at all levels of academic education. In so doing, once again we showed that Prof.
Leonardo da Vinci still has a great deal to teach to future generations of engineers and researchers. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0001744. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Inductive–deductive approach; Hydraulic jump; Leonardo da Vinci; Plunging jets; Scour process; Teaching
methodology.

Introduction Especially at the undergraduate level, different teaching ap-

Teaching hydraulics and hydraulic structure design at all levels of
academic education is always a challenge. Usually, basic concepts
of fluid mechanics are taught in undergraduate-level courses. In
particular, the courses of fluid mechanics and theory of elasticity
probably represent the first civil engineering subjects that students
come across. Therefore, they are particularly important subjects,
because they give meaning to the theoretical knowledge of math-
ematics and physics acquired in first years of the undergraduate
program, generally by using a deductive approach (Polya 1949;
Prince and Felder 2006). In other words, they help students to real-
ize that mathematics and physics represent the grammar of the lan-
guage that they will use to conceptualize and model real-world
problems (Tuminaro and Redish 2007). In this regard, fluid me-
chanics generally is perceived as a particularly fascinating subject
by undergraduate students. Conversely, graduate students are sup-
posed to already know the grammar. Thus, courses dealing with
hydraulic structure design, fluvial hydraulics, and so forth should
teach them how to use the grammar, by conjugating advanced theo-
retical knowledge with real-world projects (Tullis and Tullis 2001;
Fosnot 2005). In both cases, teaching methodology can make the
difference in stimulating students’ attention and interest in the sub-
jects (Mestre 2005).
1
Senior Researcher, Dept. of Energy, Systems, Territory, and
Construction Engineering, Univ. of Pisa, Pisa 56122, Italy (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-1823. Email: michele
.palermo@ing.unipi.it
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Energy, Systems, Territory, and Construc-
tion Engineering, Univ. of Pisa, Pisa 56122, Italy. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-9939-8930. Email: simo.pagliara@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 1, 2019; approved on
November 4, 2019; published online on March 10, 2020. Discussion period
open until August 10, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
proaches of basics of fluid mechanics can significantly affect stu-
dents’ perception of the subject. Specifically, a purely theoretical
approach, with poor links to real-world applications, often runs
the risk of conveying a less comprehensive message (Liggett
and Ettema 2001). Students can have the feeling that fluid dynam-
ics is a sort of extension of their basic knowledge of mathematics
and physics, but they do not (fully) realize its potential in solving
real-world problems. Conversely, we believe that a more applica-
tive (or mere engineering) approach runs the risk of not providing
all the essential pieces required to complete the very different and
complex puzzles represented by more practical subjects.
Similar risks can also exist at the graduate level. At this stage of
academic education, students are supposed to be more focused on
finding and giving answers. They essentially are requested to find
solutions for the design/management of most common hydraulic
systems by applying and further enhancing their basic and/or ad-
vanced knowledges. Furthermore, they also should be able to ana-
lyze different scenarios and to optimize their functioning (Weiss
and Gulliver 2001).
Based on previous observations, it is evident that being a bril-
liant scientist does not also imply being a good teacher (Laursen
et al. 2007). So, who is a good teacher, and how should he/she
teach hydraulic subjects? Answers to these questions are not easy,
probably not unique, and need to be calibrated and validated from
time to time. Nevertheless, some proposals for how to stimulate
students’ interests and enhance their capabilities in real-world prob-
lem solving can be made.
In this paper, we discuss a teaching methodology based on an
inductive–deductive approach that was tested at the University of
Pisa during the academic year 2018–2019. First, we report a short
biography of Leonardo da Vinci, focusing on his hydraulic works.
Second, we synthetize the fundamentals of the proposed methodol-
ogy, elucidating its articulation. Third, we discuss two examples of
how the proposed teaching methodology can be adopted to intro-
duce two hydraulic phenomena (i.e., the hydraulic jump and scour
processes caused by plunging jets). In so doing, we start by showing

© ASCE 04020035-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035

 and discussing two very famous drawings of Leonardo da Vinci,
along with the respective original comments (inductive phase). Then
we supplement this phase with a brief elucidation of the basic prin-
ciples leading to the governing equations, including their critical
analysis and challenging aspects (deductive phase). For the deduc-
tive phase regarding scour processes caused by jets, we discuss two
different approaches, the first based on the application of the phe-
nomenological theory of turbulence (PTT), and the second based
on the application of the Buckingham theorem. Finally, we discuss
some possible improvements to the proposed teaching methodology,
and reflect some unofficial feedback that we received from students.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Leonardo da Vinci and Water
Leonardo di Ser Piero da Vinci, more commonly known as
Leonardo da Vinci, was born on April 15, 1452, in Vinci, a small
village located in the lower valley of the Arno River, between
Pisa and Florence (Tuscany, Italy). He is considered one of the
greatest geniuses, and his areas of interest were exceptionally
wide, including painting, sculpture, science, music, mathematics,
engineering, literature, anatomy, geology, astronomy, history, car-
tography, and, of course, hydraulics. Leonardo spent the first years
of his life in Anchiano (a small suburb of Vinci), and, in 1457, he
moved to Vinci. In the mid-1460s, Leonardo’s family went to live
in Florence, where, at the age of 14, he was employed as a garzone
(apprentice) in the art studio of Verrocchio, one of the most famous
Italian painters and sculptors. In this art studio, he learned the fun-
damentals of painting and drawing and confirmed his artistic talent.
Leonardo left Verrocchio’s art studio in 1478, and from 1482 to
1499, he lived in Milan, where he became interested in hydraulic
problems. There were many canals in the city, and he was asked to
improve their navigability. In this period, he also developed the idea
of the so-called porte vinciane, i.e., lock gates of the miter gate type
usually adopted to make canals navigable. Because of the Second
Italian War (1499–1504) and the overthrow of Ludovico Sforza,
Duke of Milan, Leonardo moved to the Republic of Venice, where
he was employed as a military engineer and devised methods to
defend the city from naval attacks. In Venice, he had the chance
to test and further develop the construction techniques of the porte
Fig. 1. Drawing by Leonardo da Vinci illustrating lock gates. (Reprinted with permission from Leonardo Da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus, f 656 r, detail,
©Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana/Mondadori Portfolio.)
© ASCE 04020035-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
vinciane by introducing a smaller gate at their bottom to facilitate
the opening of the main lock gates (Fig. 1). During this period,
he also collaborated on the restoration projects of the Brenta river
(Capra 2008).
In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he travelled to
Florence and Cesena before moving back to Milan in 1506. In par-
ticular, during his stay in Florence, he worked on very ambitious
projects, among others the deviation of the Arno river. For this
purpose, he conducted studies of spur dikes to protect river banks,
channels, bridges, and so forth. An example of channel designed by
Leonardo is illustrated in Fig. 2. From 1506 to 1508, he wrote most
of his notes on hydraulic problems and structures, which can be
found primarily in the Codex Leicester. Their organization is quite
chaotic, because it is not rare that notes related to a specific drawing
can be found in other pages of the same collection or other codices.
In 1516, after a few years spent in Rome, where he met Raphael
and Michelangelo and worked on projects dealing with the recla-
mation of some areas surrounding the city, Leonardo moved to
France. In France, he spent the last 3 years of his life and was in-
volved in the canalization of the Sologne region and the deviation
of the Cher river near the city of Tours. He died in Amboise
(France) at the age of 67 on May 2, 1519.
Articulation of Adopted Teaching Methodology
The year 2019 marked the 500th anniversary of Leonardo’s death.
To celebrate this anniversary, we thought to adopt an unconven-
tional inductive–deductive approach to introduce some classic
topics to undergraduate and graduate students attending our courses
of hydraulics and hydraulic structures, respectively. This teaching
methodology can be articulated in nine steps. The first three steps
were common to both the undergraduate and graduate courses,
whereas Steps 4–9 were implemented and developed only for the
graduate-level course. The methodology was as follows:
1. We introduced some topics by showing different famous draw-
ings by Leonardo da Vinci. The drawings were shown along
with the corresponding original notes by Leonardo (if avail-
able), and students were invited to suggest real-word examples
in which similar phenomena occur.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Drawing by Leonardo da Vinci illustrating a bridge and a channel. (Reprinted with permission from Leonardo Da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus,
f 126 v, detail, ©Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana/Mondadori Portfolio.)
2. We elucidated the basic concepts related to hydraulic phenom-
ena illustrated in Leonardo’s drawings. We also provided
students with several technical papers on the topics. Their con-
tent was synthetized and discussed during the lectures, focusing
on innovative ideas and main results. Finally, we selected some
of the most general approaches dealing with the analyzed phe-
nomena and discussed them in detail. In so doing, we focused
on unsolved/underexplored and challenging aspects;
3. Whenever possible, students were taken to the hydraulic labora-
tory, where the previously analyzed phenomena were simulated
using dedicated models. Therefore, students had the chance to
observe the phenomena illustrated in the lectures and became
aware of practical difficulties characterizing experimental tests.
In addition, they were asked to collaborate in taking some mea-
surements (e.g., measurements of water depths and lengths of
hydraulic jump).
For the graduate-level course of hydraulic structures, the meth-
odology also included the following steps:
4. We grouped students in teams and assigned them different
topics to analyze.
5. Students were stimulated to autonomously advance in the as-
signed topics by expanding the literature review and searching
for further real-world projects and design solutions.
6. Students were asked to prepare posters elucidating the connec-
tions between the drawings by Leonardo and practical applica-
tions in which those phenomena usually can be found.
7. The posters were peer-reviewed by students belonging to another
team. They were asked to provide comments on other groups’
work, focusing on both scientific content and presentation.
8. Posters were revised to address the criticisms of the reviewers,
and then they were submitted to the teachers for final revision
and approval.
9. Posters were taken into consideration when evaluating the
students. This represented a sort of prize for students, and we
found it to be very stimulating for them. For the academic year
2018–2019, we decided to further encourage students by pre-
senting an opportunity to display the best posters during one of
the dedicated seminars held in Italy in 2019 to celebrate the
500th anniversary of Leonardo’s death.
From Leonardo’s Drawings to Theory and Modern
Hydraulic Structure Design
Two different approaches are generally adopted when teaching
physical sciences: inductive and deductive. Bernard (2011)
© ASCE 04020035-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
indicated that “the inductive approach involves the search for pat-
tern from observation and the development of explanations—
theories—for those patterns through series of hypotheses.” Snieder
and Larner (2009) stated that “the deductive approach follows the
path of logic most closely. The reasoning starts with a theory and
leads to a new hypothesis. This hypothesis is put to the test by con-
fronting it with observations that either lead to a confirmation or a
rejection of the hypothesis.” Our teaching methodology was based
on the idea that both approaches should be adopted simultaneously
when presenting hydraulic phenomena. Based on our teaching
experience, we believe that the learning process is much more ef-
fective when “topics are introduced by presenting specific obser-
vations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the
students are helped to discover them only after the need to know
them has been established” (Prince and Felder 2006). Therefore,
starting from selected drawings by Leonardo da Vinci, this section
illustrates two examples of how the proposed inductive–deductive
approach was successfully adopted when teaching hydraulic disci-
plines. In so doing, we also elucidate some relevant issues that
often are neglected when selling the classical textbook derivations
(e.g., the two-phase flow character of hydraulic jump). In this regard,
our choice to illustrate the application of the proposed methodology
to hydraulic jump and scour processes caused by plunging jets es-
sentially was due to the fact that Leonardo provided very accurate
descriptions of such phenomena, highlighting their peculiar features
and challenging aspects.
Case 1: Hydraulic Jump
Hydraulic jump is one of the most known and studied hydraulic
phenomena, fascinating generations of researchers and students.
Nevertheless, when students come across this phenomenon for
the first time, they run the risk of not perceiving its intrinsic com-
plexity and still-challenging aspects. In this regard, the methodo-
logical approach can have a relevant impact in the understanding of
the phenomenon.
Following the aforementioned articulation of the proposed
methodological approach, we introduced Fig. 3, which shows a
famous drawing by Leonardo of a hydraulic jump on a mobile
bed. He described this phenomenon as follows [Codex Atlanticus,
A 59 r (Biblioteca Leonardiana, n.d.)]: “l’acqua : : : rinchiude den-
tro a sé certa quantità d’aria, la quale mediante il colpo si sommerge
con essa e con veloce moto resurge in alto, pervenendo a la lasciata
superfizie vestita di sottile umidità in corpo sperico, partendosi cir-
cularmente dalla prima percussion.” An almost literal translation of
this comment could be the following: “The aerated water flow
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Drawing by Leonardo da Vinci illustrating hydraulic jump on
movable bed. (Reprinted with permission from Leonardo Da Vinci,
Codex Atlanticus, f 1098 r, detail, ©Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana
/Mondadori Portfolio.)
enters the water surface and starts rotating. Then the submerged
flow periodically returns back to the entrance zone because of such
circular motion.”
Apparently, he described the roller of a hydraulic jump, high-
lighting that the characteristics of the rotational motion do not vary
with time. In addition, he clearly illustrated the two-phase flow
character of the hydraulic jump. This aspect usually is neglected
when selling the classical textbook derivations based on the
implicit assumption that only the flow of water must be addressed.
Therefore, Leonardo’s observations can be considered a valid tool
to elucidate the fundamentals of hydraulic jump, focusing on its
stationary nature [as a consequence of the equilibrium of forces—
gravitational and surface—acting on a selected control volume
(CV)] and on the effect of air concentration on the main parameters.
Generally, in undergraduate courses, the well-known Belanger’s
equation is derived by applying the following linear momentum
equation in integral form to the CV (White 2008):
X Z Z
d Based on our teaching experience, students often run the risk of
F¼ ρvdV þ ρvðv · nÞdA ð1Þ
dt CV CS
where
X X X draulic jump by Leonardo and with lab and field observations
F¼ Fb þ Fs ð2Þ
P P P erally are underexplored/neglected in the classical textbook deriva-
where F, Fb , and Fs = total, total body (i.e., gravitational
force), and total surface forces (i.e., pressure, shear stress, and so
forth), acting on control volume, CV, and control surface, CS;
t = time; ρ = water density; dV = volume of differential element
of fluid; dA = area of the differential surface element; v =
fluid velocity vector; and n = unit outward normal on control
surface.
At this point, some assumptions are (implicitly) adopted to sim-
plify Eq. (1). In particular, Eq. (1) is rewritten in terms of compo-
nents in the streamwise direction (Fig. 4, x-axis direction) and
© ASCE 04020035-4
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
Fig. 4. Sketch of a hydraulic jump with the indication of acting forces,
hydraulic, and geometric parameters. Control volume (CV) is repre-
sented with bold lines.
specialized for a rectangular channel and uniform flow velocities
(Boussinesq coefficients = 1) as follows:
0.5ρgy21 B cos α þ ρy1 BU 21 þ W sin α
¼ 0.5ρgy22 B cos α þ ρy2 BU 22 þ Fτ ð3Þ
where α = angle of bed slope; B = channel width; g = gravitational
acceleration; y1 and y2 , and U 1 and U 2 = water depths and
average flow velocities upstream (Section 1-1) and downstream
(Section 2-2) of hydraulic jump, respectively; W = weight of water
in control volume, CV; and Fτ = integrated shear stress at channel
bottom and sidewalls. Fig. 4 shows a classical hydraulic jump oc-
curring on a horizontal bed, along with the main parameters, where
M 1 ¼ ρy1 BU 21 and M2 ¼ ρy2 BU 22 indicate the momentum fluxes;
P1 ¼ 0.5ρgy21 B cos α and P2 ¼ 0.5ρgy22 B cos α are the hydrostatic
forces at Sections 1-1 and 2-2, respectively; Lj is the length of the
hydraulic jump, and Lr is the length of the roller.
From Eq. (3), by simple algebra, it is possible to derive the well-
known expression of the conjugate depth ratio y2 =y1 for smooth
horizontal rectangular channels (i.e., for α ¼ 0 rad and Fτ ≈ 0 N)
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
y2
¼ 0.5 −1 þ 1 þ 8F21 ð4Þ
y1
where F1 = Froude number at Section 1-1.
not perceiving the complexity of the phenomenon if the analysis is
limited to mere analytical derivations. In fact, the assumptions
adopted to derive Eq. (4) contrast with the description of the hy-
(Figs. 5 and 6). In particular, the following important features gen-
tion of Belanger’s equation: (1) the two-phase flow character of the
hydraulic jump; (2) the influence of the shear stress at channel bot-
tom and sidewalls; and (3) the difficulties in assessing/defining the
hydraulic jump length.
Therefore, we thought that the drawing in Fig. 3 could be ef-
fective in transmitting some important recent findings and challeng-
ing aspects related to hydraulic jump, enhancing students’ critical
interpretation of limitations underlying the assumptions adopted
for Eq. (4). Therefore, during lectures, we elucidated the effect
of the aeration and bed roughness on the conjugate depth ratio
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Pictures of hydraulic jumps downstream of a block ramp:
(a) side view; and (b) perspective view. Flow from right to left. (Images
by Michele Palermo.)
and hydraulic jump length, introducing the concept of equivalent/
effective flow depth (Pagliara and Palermo 2015; Palermo and
Pagliara 2017, 2018). Furthermore, we illustrated important recent
findings of other renowned researchers, who extensively analyzed
the two-phase flow characteristics in hydraulic jumps and signifi-
cantly contributed to enhance the understanding of such phenome-
non (e.g., Felder and Chanson 2018; Murzyn and Chanson 2008;
Wang and Chanson 2016; Wang et al. 2015). Finally, we also
focused on “the potential that improved and nonstandard designs
may have for flow manipulations and design enhancements”
(Felder and Chanson 2018), discussing the effect of bed roughness
and air concentration on the main characteristics of hydraulic jump
(e.g., reduction of the conjugate depth ratio and jump length).
Theoretical lectures were complemented by visits to our labo-
ratory, where students could observe the hydraulic jump occurring
in rectangular channels with smooth and rough beds. On these
Fig. 6. Hydraulic jump downstream of a sill in the Moldava River (Prague, Czech Republic). Flow from right to left. (Image by Michele Palermo.)
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
occasions, they were invited to take measurements of water depths
and hydraulic jump length in order to validate Belanger’s equation
and other relationships proposed by the aforementioned studies.
In so doing, students became aware of the limitations of Eq. (4)
and the importance of conducting accurate experimental tests. In
particular, they clearly understood why “the scaling length for
the longitudinal jump characteristics is still missing” (Hager et al.
1990) and why Leonardo’s description is limited to the roller of
the jump.
Currently, we do not have any official evaluation of our course
for the academic year 2018–2019. Nevertheless, based on students’
feedback received by the first author after the visit to the laboratory,
the experimental teaching methodology was very much appreciated
and stimulating for the students. In addition, students suggested
further implementing the methodology for future academic years
by extending the proposed approach to other topics and comple-
menting it with field visits. We particularly appreciated their
comments, because we also believe that field visits in particular
represent a fundamental element to strengthen the comprehension
of hydraulic phenomena and complete the learning process.
Case 2: Scour due to Plunging Jets
The proposed methodology was extensively adopted and further
implemented for graduate students, using Steps 4–9 reported in
the previous section. At this level of academic education, students
are supposed to gain insights into more complex hydraulic phenom-
ena involving advanced concepts of fluid mechanics. Therefore,
several topics (e.g., lock gate and spur dike design, scour at bridge
piers, jet scour processes, and so forth) were analyzed following the
same approach. Nevertheless, this manuscript is limited to discus-
sing the application of the proposed inductive–deductive method-
ology to scour problems corresponding to hydraulic structures.
In particular, we focused on the scour mechanism caused by jets
plunging onto cohesionless granular material beds, because this
represents one of the rare cases for which we were able to find
a detailed description of the phenomenon by Leonardo.
For the hydraulic jump, we first introduced a famous drawing by
Leonardo (Fig. 7) representing a jet impinging onto a water surface
and mobile bed. In this case, he distinguished four main phases, the
original description of which, along with our nonliterary transla-
tion, is (Schneider 2001)
04020035-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Drawing by Leonardo da Vinci illustrating an impinging jet onto a water surface and mobile bed. (Reprinted with permission from Leonardo
Da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus, f 105 v, detail, ©Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana/Mondadori Portfolio.)

1. The water jet originating from a drop structure entrains air be-
fore entering the downstream pool (dell’aria che si sommerge
insieme coll’acqua e questo è il primo atto e fia il primo che
sarà dinfinito);
2. The air–water mixture diffuses within the water pool (il 2° fia
quello di essa aria sommersa);
3. A macrovortex forms in the water pool, resulting in significant
agitation of the water surface (air bubbles appear on the water
surface), and the pool bottom is modeled by the rotating bipha-
sic flow (il 3° è quel che fanno esse acque refresse poi che l’han
renduta la impremutata aria all’altra aria la quale poi che tale
acqua resurge in figura di grossi bollori acquista peso infra
l’aria e di quella ricade nella superfitie dell’acqua penetrando-
la insino al fondo e esso fondo percote e consuma); and
4. The water surface is characterized by two lateral (symmetric)
wake vortexes, causing water recirculation toward the jet impin-
gement zone (il 4° e il moto revertiginoso fatto nella pelle del
pelago dell’acqua che ritorna indirieto al loco della sua caduta
come sito più basso che s’interponga in fra l’acqua incidente).
Leonardo furnished a detailed description of the main physical
mechanisms occurring during the scour process. In particular, he
clearly understood that falling jets entrain air before reaching
the water surface, and the bed modification essentially is caused by
the biphasic flow rotation in the water pool [Fig. 8(b)]. He also
described the water surface recirculation, generally occurring for
[three-dimensional (3D)] axisymmetric equilibrium configurations
[Figs. 8(a) and 9]. In synthesis, he highlighted the complexity of
the scour mechanism, focusing on some peculiar aspects which still
are not fully understood and explained.
Recent theoretical advancements and experimental evidence
have revealed that Leonardo’s description does not apply to the
generality of cases. Apparently, he focused on flow characteristics
pertaining to three-dimensional equilibrium configurations and
aerated jets (usually termed white water condition in scour proc-
esses), without furnishing insights on scour caused by nonaerated
impinging jets (black water condition) and on the so-called cylin-
drical/two-dimensional (2D) case; Pagliara et al. (2006, 2008a)
gave details of the classification of 2D/3D scour cases). Therefore,
approximately one month before the introduction of this topic, stu-
dents were provided with papers by some of the most renowned
scientists who worked on jet scour problems (e.g., Bollaert
and Schleiss 2003; Bombardelli and Gioia 2005 and 2006;
Bombardelli et al. 2018; Bormann and Julien 1991; Dey et al.
2017; Dey and Sarkar 2008; Gioia and Bombardelli 2005;

Fig. 8. Example of impinging jet originating from a pipe: (a) top view; and (b) side view.

© ASCE 04020035-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Upper Falls in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. (Photo
courtesy of Dr. Brian Crookston.)
Hoffmans 1998 and 2009; Pagliara et al. 2006, 2008a, b; Stein and
Julien 1990, 1993, 1994; Stein et al. 1993) and were asked to inde-
pendently study them. In addition, we illustrated the fundamentals
of the Buckingham method and complemented theoretical lessons
with some applicative examples. In so doing, our aim was to pro-
vide students with a global picture of the complexity of the phe-
nomenon and to stimulate them to understand how governing
parameters are generally selected and handled.
During lectures, Leonardo’s notes were discussed in detail and
students were invited to recognize both great intuitions and limi-
tations of his description, based on their own understanding of
the provided papers. Their observations were followed by the clari-
fication of some fundamental features regarding scour geometry
and flow characteristics. Namely, scour processes were distin-
guished in 2D and 3D cases based on the equilibrium morphology
and flow characteristics within a turbulent pothole. It was clarified
that such classification does not depend on the shape of the jet
impinging onto the water surface, as clearly shown by Pagliara
et al. (2006). In particular, flow and morphological characteristics
pertaining to both configurations were extensively analyzed and the
quantitative criterion to distinguish them was illustrated (Pagliara
et al. 2008a). Furthermore, we discussed the mechanism of air en-
trainment in jets travelling through the atmosphere (emphasizing
the role of the surface tension in the process), from the initial for-
mation of waves on the surface of the jet (generated by its internal
turbulence) to the break-up point, when “the flow is not a continu-
ous mass, but consists of individual clumps of water” because “the
jet turbulent surface fluctuations are large enough to penetrate its
core” (Ervine et al. 2001).
Once the fundamentals of scour processes were illustrated, dif-
ferent approaches (i.e., empirical, semitheoretical, and theoretical)
to evaluate the main scour hole parameters were presented, and the
main findings of the papers preliminarily assigned to students were
explained in detail. In this way, students became aware of the com-
plexity and variety of scour phenomena, including challenging
problems [e.g., the effect of flow aeration on the steady production
of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in the pothole, influence of bed
© ASCE 04020035-7
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
material cohesion on the scour evolution, scale effects, and so
forth], the theoretical basis of which still is far from clear for
the generality of cases. Students also realized that most of the avail-
able equations in the literature are characterized by similar gov-
erning parameters and, although empirically derived, have been
successfully adopted to design very complex structures. It was
clarified that such empirical relationships generally are obtained
from physical models by finding nondimensional governing param-
eters via the Buckingham Π-theorem. Nevertheless, during an ex-
ercise session, we showed that the validity of such relationships is
limited to the tested ranges of variables and geometric configura-
tions, and their predicting capability cannot be extended beyond
those ranges (e.g., Schoklitsch 1932; Veronese 1937; Mueller
and Eggenberger 1944; Franke 1960; Kotoulas 1967; Chee and
Padiyar 1969; Chee and Kung 1974; Machado 1980; Whittaker
and Schleiss 1984; Mason and Arumugam 1985; Bormann and
Julien 1991, Stein and Julien 1990, 1993, 1994; Stein et al. 1993;
Bollaert and Schleiss 2003). Conversely, as noted by Hoffmans
(2009), relationships “based on fundamental principles of physics,
calibrated by using measured scour data, could overcome this
problem.”
Based on these observations, we detailed two examples of em-
pirical and theoretical approaches for the estimation of maximum
scour depth caused by plunging jets on cohesionless bed materials,
i.e., the empirical approach developed by Pagliara et al. (2006,
2008a, b) and the theoretical approach based on the application
of the phenomenological theory of turbulence (PTT), pioneered
by Bombardelli and Gioia (2005, 2006) and Gioia and Bombardelli
2005)).
Our choice to focus on such approaches was essentially due to
the following reasons. To the best of our knowledge, Pagliara et al.
were the first to introduce two fundamental aspects (not taken into
account in other studies), i.e., the distinction between 2D and 3D
cases and the concept of static and dynamic equilibrium configu-
rations. Apparently, other studies are less general and focused more
on specific aspects and jet configurations, whereas the selected ap-
proach is one of the most validated (using more than 1,000 exper-
imental tests) and comprehensive in the literature, involving the
effects of several parameters (e.g., flow characteristics; jet angle,
shape, and aeration; tailwater depth; bed material sediment grada-
tion; upstream flow characteristics; ridge removal; and jet submer-
gence, i.e., submerged and unsubmerged jet configuration). In
addition, it also analyzed the scour characteristics for 2D and
3D cases, including static and dynamic equilibrium configurations.
Based on the same reasoning, we focused on the theories proposed
by Bombardelli and Gioia (2005, 2006) and Gioia and Bombardelli
(2005). To the best of our knowledge, their approach based on the
phenomenological theory of turbulence represents the first fully
theoretical method in the literature to fulfil the aforementioned
statement by Hoffmans (2009).
For the empirical approach, Pagliara et al. (2006, 2008a) did not
detail the dimensional analysis leading to the derived nondimen-
sional governing relationship for the maximum scour depth (Δ).
Therefore, based on their own reading and understanding of the
provided papers, we asked students to propose a set of governing
parameters and derive the nondimensional groups. Students’ propos-
als and analyses were discussed during an exercise session and the
dimensional analysis was performed for the 2D case and unsub-
merged jets, i.e., one of the most frequent conditions in practical
applications. The global functional relationship including the param-
eters on which the maximum scour depth (Δ) depends (Breusers and
Raudkivi 1991; Hoffmans 1998; Pagliara et al. 2006, 2008a) is
Δ ¼ fðD; Dp ; V j ; d90 ; σ; δ; Δρ; ρ; g; Qa ; U u Þ ð5Þ
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Qa
Π8 ¼ ð13Þ
V j D2p

Uu
Π9 ¼ ð14Þ
Vj

Then students were asked to rearrange the Πi groups to obtain

the usual nondimensional parameters adopted in scour problems,
i.e., the densimetric Froude number Fd90 ¼ V j =½ðΔρ=ρÞgd90 0.5,
the upstream flow Froude number Fu ¼ U u =ðgDÞ0.5, and the air
content of the jet β ¼ Qa =Q
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 Vj
Ψ7 ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ Fd90 ð15Þ
Π3 Π6 Π7 ðΔρ=ρÞgd90

4
Ψ8 ¼ Π ¼β ð16Þ
π 8
Π9
Ψ9 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ¼ Fu ð17Þ
Π2 Π7
Fig. 10. Sketch of a scour hole due to a plunging jet with the indication
of main hydraulic and geometric parameters. Therefore, the final nondimensional functional relationship
becomes
 
Δ D d90 Δρ
¼f ; ; σ; δ; ; Fd90 ; β; Fu ð18Þ
where D = water depth over original sediment bed level; Dp = noz- Dp Dp Dp ρ
zle diameter for circular jets or equivalent diameter for rectangular
jets (Pagliara et al. 2006); V j = mean water velocity of jet; d90 = bed corresponding to the governing functional relationship reported by
material size for which 90% is finer; σ = sediment nonuniformity Pagliara et al. (2006).
parameter; δ = jet inclination with respect to horizontal; Δρ ¼ ρs − Validation is fundamental for any deductive approach, because
ρ = reduced sediment density, where ρs and ρ = sediment and water it represents the step in which the “hypothesis is put to the test by
density; g = gravitational acceleration; Qa = air discharge in jet; and confronting it with observations that either lead to a confirmation or
U u = average upstream velocity (Fig. 10). For the 3D case, Eq. (5) a rejection of the hypothesis” (Snieder and Larner 2009). There-
contains the additional parameter b, representing the maximum fore, students were taken to the laboratory and some experimental
extrapolated scour hole width [see Pagliara et al. (2008a), Fig. 3 tests (relative to the 2D case) were conducted by varying D and the
for details]. The role of the parameter b was extensively discussed water and air discharge in the jet. Following Pagliara and Palermo
with students because it is one of the most important variables to (2013), the air discharge in the jet was introduced by using an air
establish whether the scour geometry can be considered 2D or compressor, and it was regulated by using two valves. An air flow
3D in scour problems. Nevertheless, the 3D case was not explicitly meter installed in the air circuit was employed to measure air dis-
analyzed during the exercise session, because the governing equa- charge. In this way, students could understand the effect of such
tion can be derived following the steps of the 2D case. parameters on the maximum scour depth Δ. In particular, they com-
Students proposed using V j , Dp , and ρ as the repeating varia- prehended the significant influence of jet aeration, resulting in a
bles. Therefore, by applying the Buckingham Π-theorem, the fol- scour depth decrease with β. Furthermore, they could observe that
lowing nondimensional groups (Πi ) were derived: the maximum scour depth occurring when the jet action is still
present (dynamic equilibrium configuration) is significantly larger
Δ than that occurring when the jet action ceases (static equilibrium
Π1 ¼ ð6Þ
Dp configuration). Finally, the scour depth measurements taken during
the laboratory visit were used to test the predicting capability of
D different empirical equations, confirming the limitations of such
Π2 ¼ ð7Þ
Dp approaches when adopted beyond their tested range of parameters
and for different configurations.
d90 For the theoretical approach developed by Gioia and Bombardelli
Π3 ¼ ð8Þ (2005) for the scour equilibrium in the 2D case, under black
Dp
water conditions (i.e., absence of jet aeration), we elucidated the
Π4 ¼ σ ð9Þ fundamentals of the PTT and the analytical steps leading to the
following equation:
Π5 ¼ δ ð10Þ ρ
ΔþD¼K ðqhÞ2=3 g−1=3 d−2=3 ð19Þ
ðρs − ρÞ
Δρ
Π6 ¼ ð11Þ where K = multiplicative constant [equal to 0.3 according to
ρ
Bombardelli et al. (2018)]; q = discharge per unit width; h ¼
gDp z þ V 2j =ð2gÞ = theoretical available head at surface of impingement
Π7 ¼ ð12Þ (head of jet), where z = difference in elevation from section of issu-
V 2j ance to tailwater surface; and d = characteristic sediment diameter.

© ASCE 04020035-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035

 In addition, during the lectures, particular emphasis was given
to the two tenets governing the PTT (i.e., the steady production of
the TKE per unit mass occurring at the length scale of the largest
eddies, and the mechanism of the TKE cascade from large to small
scales) and the still-challenging aspects not included in the theo-
retical model. In so doing, we wanted students to realize that
any theory, although comprehensive and innovative, is based on
some simplifying assumptions, involving a schematic representa-
tion of the analyzed phenomenon.
At this point, we found it interesting to address the following
questions: (1) is the theoretical approach better than the empirical
approach in terms of predicting capability?; and (2) are the two ap-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proaches analytically consistent? Regarding the first question, the an-
swer could appear obvious, because, in principle, a fully theoretical
approach overcomes the main limitations of empirical approaches,
and does not depend on tested conditions and configurations. Never-
theless, this does not imply that the theoretical approach always
performs better than empirical relations in their specific ranges of
validity and for specific tested configurations. In this regard, students
were asked to compare the predicting capability of the two ap-
proaches using data from experimental tests conducted during their
lab visit and data derived from the provided papers. In so doing, they
found that the predicting capability of the approaches is comparable
under black water conditions and for jet angles higher than 45°
(i.e., in both the cases the deviation between predicted and measured
scour depth values is less than 30%). In contrast, for aerated jets and
for those configurations in which either an upstream flow is present
or the ridge is artificially flattened, the approach by Pagliara et al.
(2006) performs slightly better in its range of validity. This should
not be surprising, because those conditions and configurations are not
taken into consideration in the theoretical model. Overall, it was
found that the theoretical approach satisfactorily predicts the scour
phenomena regardless of the sediment gradation and structure con-
figuration, and is universally applicable.
Regarding the analytical consistency of the two approaches, a
direct comparison between theoretical and empirical formulas
should be done considering the effect of each parameter on the
maximum scour depth. Specifically, for both approaches, Δ de-
creases with the gravitational acceleration g, the diameter of the
grains of the bed d, the relative nondimensional density of sediment
ðρs − ρÞ=ρ, and tailwater depth D; whereas Δ is a monotonically
increasing function of water discharge q and of the theoretical
available head at the surface of impingement h, (i.e., it increases
with jet velocity V j, on which q and h depend). In this sense,
the equation proposed by Pagliara et al. (2006) is one of the
few that is analytically consistent with the theory for the 2D case,
along with those proposed by Mueller and Eggenberger (1944) and
Bormann and Julien (1991). In addition, Pagliara et al. (2006)
explicitly took into account the effect of sediment gradation, jet
angle, upstream flow Froude number, ridge removal, and air con-
centration in the jet. In this regard, the effects of sediment gradation
(via shear stress) and, to some extent, jet angle are embedded in the
theoretical approach proposed by Bombardelli and Gioia (2005,
2006) and Gioia and Bombardelli (2005) because, according to
Hoffmans (1998), the effect of the jet angle is negligible in typical
applications (i.e., for δ > 60°), whereas the other three parameters
are not taken into consideration in the model.
Implementation of Teaching Methodology for Graduate
Students
Our teaching methodology was particularly effective for the
hydraulic structures course (graduate level). This course is of 12
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
© ASCE 04020035-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
credits and lasts 22 weeks. There are 5 h of lessons each week,
totalling 110 h=academic year. In our teaching experiment, we
did not change the arguments of our lectures with respect to the
previous academic years; we modified only the methodology of
presenting some of the topics taught in the mentioned course. In
so doing, we intended to minimize the effect of our methodology
on both course content and work load.
In particular, we adopted this methodology to introduce some
selected topics (e.g., scour at bridge pier, lock gates and spur dike
design, and so forth). For these cases, we were not able to find
detailed notes. Nevertheless, Leonardo’s drawings represented an
excellent tool to stimulate students’ critical analysis of different
phenomena, because they clearly illustrate the complexity of physi-
cal mechanisms.
Two months before the end of the course, students were grouped
in teams and different topics were assigned to each team. They were
asked to independently explore the assigned topics, searching for
real-world projects and design solutions related to the analyzed
phenomena. For example, one of the groups visited two lock gates
in Viareggio (Tuscany, Italy) and Pisa, and collected information
about their functioning. In addition, they were asked to prepare
posters, elucidating the connections between the assigned drawings
by Leonardo and real-word projects. In so doing, they could also
explore some of the methodologies that had been illustrated during
lectures. Posters were shown and commented on during a lecture,
and students belonging to another team were asked to act as
reviewers. In this way, we wanted students to develop a critical ap-
proach when analyzing the work of colleagues, in a friendly envi-
ronment. After the revision process, posters were submitted to the
teachers and their scientific quality was evaluated. In addition,
oral presentations of such posters were taken into consideration
for the final evaluation, representing a fair acknowledgement of stu-
dents’ work.
In this case, we have not received any official evaluation by stu-
dents yet. However, at the end of the lesson period, we asked for
their feedback on our teaching experiment. Their comments were
unanimously positive and very encouraging. In addition, they also
provided meaningful suggestions for improving the learning pro-
cess. For example, some of them suggested visiting Leonardo’s
museum in Milan to get more insight into his works; others sug-
gested visiting real-world projects related to Leonardo’s drawings.
We found students’ comments to be very pertinent and construc-
tive. Therefore, we plan to complement our courses with field visits
in the next academic year. We believe that such activities are not
perceived by students as an increase of the work load. Furthermore,
their effect on the course content arguably is minimal, because in
our university system additional lessons (approximately up to 10 h)
can be conducted at the end of each semester. Therefore, we even-
tually can use this opportunity to avoid any impact of this teaching
methodology on the course content.
Based on students’ feedback, we think that our experiment
essentially was successful, but it can be further improved. Over-
all, it was a very stimulating experience, confirming that hy-
draulic engineers and researchers still have much to learn from
Leonardo.
Conclusions
This paper illustrated an inductive–deductive approach to teaching
hydraulic subjects. We tested such an approach for the first time
during the academic year 2018–2019 when introducing hydraulic
jump to undergraduate students and several different topics to
graduate students.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 To do so, we reported and commented on famous drawings by g = gravitational acceleration;
Leonardo, along with corresponding original notes, highlighting g0 = reduced gravitational acceleration;
his impressive capacity to provide insight into the physics of the h = head of jet;
observed phenomena and still-challenging aspects. Leonardo’s ob- K = constant;
servations and drawings were complemented by pictures of the
Lj = length of hydraulic jump;
same phenomena at different scales and by laboratory visits.
Lr = length of roller;
The inductive phase was followed by theoretical lectures, in
which we did not limit ourselves to introduce concepts and selling M 1 = momentum flux at Section 1-1;
the classical textbook derivations. On the contrary, we tried to pro- M 2 = momentum flux at Section 2-2;
vide students with a bridge between the course theory and real-life n = unit outward normal on control surface;
applications, enhancing their critical interpretation and comprehen- P1 = hydrostatic force at Section 1-1;
sion of the complexity of hydraulic phenomena. P2 = hydrostatic force at Section 2-2;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For graduate students, the proposed approach was further devel- Q = water discharge;
oped and implemented. Students were grouped in teams, and each Qa = air discharge;
team was asked to select some drawings by Leonardo and to ex- q = discharge per unit width;
plore the related theoretical aspects, based on the methodologies t = time;
illustrated during lectures. Posters were preliminarily reviewed U u = average upstream velocity;
by students belonging to other teams and then revised and approved
U 1 = average flow velocity at Section 1-1;
by the first author.
U 2 = average flow velocity at Section 2-2;
Although no official feedback is available, students’ opinions of
this creative teaching experiment were very positive and encourag- V j = jet velocity;
ing. In addition, they also provided some pertinent suggestions that v = fluid velocity vector;
can help us to further improve the proposed methodology. x = longitudinal axis;
This experience also was very stimulating for the authors, show- W = weight of control volume;
ing that Prof. Leonardo da Vinci still has much to teach to hydraulic y1 = upstream water depth of hydraulic jump (Section 1-1);
engineers and researchers. Therefore, we conclude this paper by y2 = downstream water depth of the hydraulic jump
recalling the essence of Leonardo’s approach to natural phenomena (Section 2-2);
(Capra 2008): “First I shall do some experiments before I proceed α = angle of bed slope;
farther, because my intention is to cite experience first and then β = air content in jet;
with reasoning show why such experience is bound to operate δ = jet inclination with respect to horizontal;
in such a way. And this is the true rule by which those who specu-
Δ = scour depth;
late about the effects of nature must proceed” (Leonardo da Vinci,
Π = nondimensional group;
c. 1513).
ρ = water density;
ρs = sediment density;
P
Data Availability Statement F = total force;
P
Fb = gravitational force;
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study. P
Fs = total surface force;
σ = bed material nonuniformity coefficient; and
Acknowledgments Ψ = rearranged nondimensional group.
The authors are very thankful to Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana/
Mondadori Portofolio for granting the permission to publish
Figs. 1–3 and 7. The authors also are very thankful to Dr. Brian References
Crookston for use of the photo in Fig. 9. Bernard, H. R. 2011. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. 5th ed. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Biblioteca Leonardiana. n.d. “Codex Atlanticus.” Accessed February 19,
Notation
2020. https://www.leonardodigitale.com/sfoglia/codice-atlantico-ed
The following symbols are used in this paper: -hoepli/0059r_b-c/.
Bollaert, E., and A. Schleiss. 2003. “Scour of rock due to the impact
B = channel width;
of plunging high velocity jets. Part I: A state-of-the-art review.”
b = maximum extrapolated scour width; J. Hydraul. Res. 41 (5): 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1080
D = water depth over the original sediment bed level; /00221680309499991.
Dp = jet diameter; Bombardelli, F. A., and G. Gioia. 2005. “Towards a theoretical model for
d = sediment diameter; scour phenomena.” In Proc., RCEM 2005, 4th IAHR Symp. on River,
dA = area of differential surface element; Coastal, and Estuarine Morphodynamics, edited by G. Parker and M.
dV = volume of differential element of fluid; García, 931–936. London: CRC Press.
dxx = material size for which xx% is finer; Bombardelli, F. A., and G. Gioia. 2006. “Scouring of granular beds by jet-
driven axisymmetric turbulent cauldrons.” Phys. Fluids 18 (8): 088101.
Fd90 = densimetric Froude number;
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2335887.
Fu = upstream Froude number; Bombardelli, F. A., M. Palermo, and S. Pagliara. 2018. “Temporal evolu-
Fτ = integrated shear stress; tion of jet induced scour depth in cohesionless granular beds and the
F1 = Froude number at Section 1-1; phenomenological theory of turbulence.” Phys. Fluids 30 (8):
f = function; 085109. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5041800.

© ASCE 04020035-10 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035

 Bormann, N. E., and P. Y. Julien. 1991. “Scour downstream of grade-
control structures.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 117 (5): 579–594. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1991)117:5(579).
Breusers, H. N. C., and A. J. Raudkivi. 1991. Scouring: Hydraulic struc-
tures design manual series. Amsterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Capra, F. 2008. The science of Leonardo: Inside the mind of the great
genius of the renaissance. New York: Anchor.
Chee S. P., and T. Kung. 1974. “Piletas de derrubio autoformadas.”
In Proc., 6th IAHR Latin American Congress, Madrid, Spain:
International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and
Research.
Chee, S. P., and P. V. Padiyar. 1969. “Erosion at the base of flip buckets.”
Eng. J. Inst. Canada 52 (111): 22–24.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/20/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Dey, S., G. R. Kishore, O. Castro-Orgaz, and S. Z. Ali. 2017. “Hydrody-
namics of submerged turbulent plane offset jets.” Phys. Fluids 29 (6):
065112. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4989559.
Dey, S., and A. Sarkar. 2008. “Characteristics of submerged jets in evolving
scour hole downstream of an apron.” J. Eng. Mech. 134 (11): 927–936.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:11(927).
Ervine, D. A., H. T. Falvey, and W. Withers. 2001. “Pressure fluctuations
on plunge pool floors.” J. Hydraul. Res. 35 (2): 257–279. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00221689709498430.
Felder, S., and H. Chanson. 2018. “Air-water flow patterns of hydraulic
jumps on uniform beds macroroughness.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 143 (3):
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001402.
Fosnot, C. T. 2005. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Franke, P. G. 1960. “Uber Kolkbildung und Kolkformen.” [In German.]
Oesterreichische Wasserwirtschaft 12(1): 11–16.
Gioia, G., and F. A. Bombardelli. 2005. “Localized turbulent flows on
scouring granular beds.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (1): 014501. https://doi
.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.014501.
Hager, W. H., R. Bremen, and N. Kawagoshi. 1990. “Classical hydraulic
jump: Length of roller.” J. Hydraul. Res. 28 (5): 591–608. https://doi
.org/10.1080/00221689009499048.
Hoffmans, G. J. C. M. 1998. “Jet scour in equilibrium phase.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 124 (4): 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(1998)124:4(430).
Hoffmans, G. J. C. M. 2009. “Closure problem to jet scour.” J. Hydraul.
Res. 47 (1): 100–109. https://doi.org/10.3826/jhr.2009.3179.
Kotoulas, D. 1967. “Das Kolkproblem unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung
der Faktoren Zeit und Geschiebemischung im Rahmen der Wildbach-
verbauung.” [In German.] Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil, Environ-
mental, and Geomatic Engineering—Laboratory of Hydraulics,
Hydrology and Glaciology, ETH Zürich.
Laursen, S., C. Liston, H. Thiry, and J. Graf. 2007. “What good is a scientist
in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for
a short-duration science outreach intervention in K–12 classrooms.”
CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 6 (1): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-05
-0165.
Liggett, J. A., and R. Ettema. 2001. “Civil-engineering education: Alter-
native paths.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (12): 1041–1051. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:12(1041).
Machado, L. I. 1980. “Formulas to calculate the scour limit on granular
or rock beds.” In Proc., 8th National Workshop on Large Dams,
35–52. Paris: International Commission on Large Dams.
Mason, P. J., and K. Arumugam. 1985. “Free jet scour below dams and flip
buckets.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 111 (2): 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(1985)111:2(220).
Mestre, J. P. 2005. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary
perspective. Greebwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Mueller, R., and W. Eggenberger. 1944. “Experimentelle und theoretische
Untersuchungen über das Kolkproblem.” [In German.] In Mitt. Versu-
chanstalt Wasserbau, No. 5. Zurich, Switzerland: ETH Zurich.
Murzyn, F., and H. Chanson. 2008. “Experimental assessment of scale
effects affecting two-phase flow properties in hydraulic jumps.” Exp.
Fluids 45 (3): 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-008-0494-4.
Pagliara, S., M. Amidei, and W. H. Hager. 2008a. “Hydraulics of 3D plunge
pool scour.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (9): 1275–1284. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:9(1275).
© ASCE 04020035-11
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020035
Pagliara, S., W. H. Hager, and H.-E. Minor. 2006. “Hydraulics of plane
plunge pool scour.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (5): 450–461. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:5(450).
Pagliara, S., I. Lotti, and M. Palermo. 2008b. “Hydraulic jumps on rough
bed of stream rehabilitation structures.” J. Hydro-environ. Res. 2 (1):
29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2008.06.001.
Pagliara, S., and M. Palermo. 2013. “Analysis of scour characteristics in
presence of aerated crossing jets.” Aust. J. Water Resour. 16 (2):
163–172. https://doi.org/10.7158/W12-012.2013.16.2.
Pagliara, S., and M. Palermo. 2015. “Hydraulic jumps on rough and smooth
beds: Aggregate approach for horizontal and adverse-sloped beds.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 53 (2): 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2015.1017778.
Palermo, M., and S. Pagliara. 2017. “D-jump in rough sloping channels at
low Froude numbers.” J. Hydro-environ. Res. 14 (1): 150–156. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2016.10.002.
Palermo, M., and S. Pagliara. 2018. “Semi-theoretical approach for energy
dissipation estimation at hydraulic jumps in rough sloped channels.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 56 (6): 786–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2017.1419991.
Polya, G. 1949. How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Prince, M. J., and R. M. Felder. 2006. “Inductive teaching and learning
methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases.” J. Eng.
Educators 95 (2): 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006
.tb00884.x.
Schneider, M. 2001. Leonardo da Vinci–Delle Acque, [In Italian.] Palermo,
Italy: Sellerio Editore.
Schoklitsch, A. 1932. “Kolkbildung unter Ueberfallstrahlen.” [In German.]
Wasserwirtschaft 25 (24): 343.
Snieder, R., and K. Larner. 2009. The art of being a scientist: A guide for
graduate students and their mentors. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Stein, O. R., and P. Y. Julien. 1990. “Sediment concentration measurements
below small headcuts.” In Proc., 1990 National Conf., 293–298.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Stein, O. R., and P. Y. Julien. 1993. “Criterion delineating the mode of
headcut migration.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 119 (1): 37–50. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1993)119:1(37).
Stein, O. R., and P. Y. Julien. 1994. “Sediment concentration below free
overfall.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 120 (9): 1043–1059. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1994)120:9(1043).
Stein, O. R., P. Y. Julien, and C. V. Alonso. 1993. “Mechanics of jet scour
downstream of a headcut.” J. Hydraul. Res. 31 (6): 723–738. https://doi
.org/10.1080/00221689309498814.
Tullis, B. P., and J. P. Tullis. 2001. “Real-world projects reinforce funda-
mentals in the classroom.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (12): 992–995. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:12(992).
Tuminaro, J., and E. F. Redish. 2007. “Elements of a cognitive model
of physics problem solving: Epistemic games.” Phys. Rev. Special
Top.– Phys. Educ. Res. 3 (2): 020201. https://doi.org/10.1103/Phys
RevSTPER.3.020101.
Veronese, A. 1937. “Erosioni di fondo a valle di uno scarico.” [In Italian.]
Annali Lavori Pubblici 75 (9): 717–726.
Wang, H., and H. Chanson. 2016. “Self-similarity and scale effects in
physical modelling of hydraulic jump roller dynamics, air entrainment
and turbulent scales.” Environ. Fluid Mech. 16 (6): 1087–1110. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016-9466-z.
Wang, H., F. Murzyn, and H. Chanson. 2015. “Interaction between
free-surface, two-phase flow and total pressure in hydraulic jump.”
Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 64 (Jun): 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.expthermflusci.2015.02.003.
Weiss, P. T., and J. S. Gulliver. 2001. “What students need in hydraulic
design projects?” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (12): 984–991. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:12(984).
White, F. M. 2008. Fluid mechanics. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Whittaker, J. G., and A. Schleiss. 1984. “Scour related to energy
dissipaters for high head structures.” In Vol. 73 of Mitteilungen der
Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau. Zurich, Switzerland: Laboratory of
Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology.
J. Hydraul. Eng.