Friction Effect on Hydraulic Jump

Daniel Foroughi

Submitted to the
Institute of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering

Eastern Mediterranean University

September 2014
Gazimağusa, North Cyprus
Approval of the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research

Prof. Dr. Elvan Yılmaz

Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of
Science in Civil Engineering.

Prof. Dr. Özgür Eren

Chair, Department of Civil Engineering

We certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate in
scope and quality as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Umut Turker

Supervisor

Examining Committee

1. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Umut Türker

2. Asst. Prof. Dr. Tulin Akçaoğlu

3. Asst. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ergil

 ABSTRACT

A theoretical relationship for calculating the sequent depth ratio of the hydraulic

jump formed in rectangular horizontal and roughened bed channels has been offered.

This has been achieved based on considering the effect of drag force due to bed

roughness in the momentum equation of hydraulic jumps. Two dimensionless

parameters, dimensionless drag effect and dimensionless roughness effect are

developed in order to observe the effect of roughness height on the magnitude of

drag. Also, the effect of dimensionless drag effect on drag coefficient during

hydraulic jump is achieved for different roughness heights at the bottom of channel.

Within this study, another important physical phenomena occurring during hydraulic

jumps that is the roller length as well investigated. A new model is developed for

estimating the roller length in rectangular channels in terms of conjugate depths and

upstream flow velocity. The developed equation has been tested for different type of

rectangular cross section roughened beds as well.

Keywords: Hydraulic jump, roughened bed, rectangular channel, drag force, roller

length.

iii
 ÖZ

Dikdörtgen kesitlerde taban pürüzlülüklerinin hidrolik sıçrama üzerinde yaptığı etki

araştırılmış ve sıçrama öncesi ve sonrası su derinlikleri ile ilgili bağıntısı

tanımlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Bağıntının elde edilmesinde hidrolik sıçrama anında

momentumun korunumu ilkesi baz alınmış ve momentumun korunumu denklemi

çözülerek kanal tabanındaki pürüzlülük ile sürükleme (drag) kuvveti arasında bir

ilişki kurulmuştur. Boyutsuz parametreler, boyutsuz sürükleme etkisi ve boyutsuz

pürüzlülük etkisi, kullanılarak pürüz yüksekliğinin hidrolik sıçramaya yaptığı etki

gözlemlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada ayrıca hidrolik sıçramalar sırasında ortaya çıkan bir

diğer önemli fiziksel fenomen olan sıçrama uzunluğu da bir model geliştirilerek

eşlenik derinlikler ve menba akış hızı cinsinden yazılmış ve Dikdörtgen kesitlerde

sıçrama uzunluğunu tahmin etmek için geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen bu denklem farklı

pürüzlülük katsayısına sahip olan ortamlar için test edilmiş ve hidrolik sıçrama

uzunluğu Dikdörtgen kesitler için modellenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Hidrolik Sıçrama, pürüzlü yatak, dikdörtgen kanal, sürükleme

kuvveti, sıçrama uzunluğu.

iv
DEDICATION

To My Family

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Umut Turker for his continuous support and

guidance in the preparation of this study. Without his invaluable supervision, all my

efforts could have been short-sighted.

I owe quit a lot to my family who allowed me to travel all the way from Iran to Cyprus

and supported me all throughout my studies. I would like to dedicate this study to them

as an indication of their significance in this study as well as in my life.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii

ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... iv

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... x

LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................ xiii

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 The Outcome of This Study ............................................................................... 3

1.3 Literatures Review ............................................................................................. 4

2 FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 7

2.1 Hydraulic Jump .................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Types of Hydraulic Jump............................................................................. 8

2.1.2 Basic Characteristic of Hydraulic Jump .................................................... 10

2.2 Drag and Its Effects .......................................................................................... 15

2.2.1 Friction Drag and Pressure Drag ............................................................... 15

2.2.2 Drag Coefficient ........................................................................................ 16

2.2.3 Roughness and Drag Effects on Hydraulic Jump ...................................... 16

3 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION .................................................................... 20

3.1 Depth Ratio in Hydraulic Jumps ...................................................................... 20

3.2 Roller Length in Hydraulic Jumps ................................................................... 25

3.3 coefficient of determination, (R2) ..................................................................... 27

vii
 3.4 Calculation of the Errors .................................................................................. 28

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 29

4.1 Friction Effect Analysis, Drag Force Coefficient and Drag Force ................... 29

4.1.1 The obtained relationship between the dimensionless Drag Effect, (β) and

the dimensionless Roughness Effect, (Ks /E) ................................................... 30

4.1.2 The relationship between Ks /E and β with respect to type of the jump.. 34

4.1.2.b Steady Jump Condition ........................................................................... 36

4.1.2.c Strong Jump Condition ........................................................................... 40

4.1.3 Relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and dimensionless

drag effect, β ....................................................................................................... 42

4.1.4 Relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β ......................... 46

4.1.5 Relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd .................. 49

4.2 Roller Length .................................................................................................... 53

4.2.1 Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1, and K/E ......... 53

4.2.2 Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1, and depth ratio

(y2 / y1 -1)v1 .......................................................................................................... 55

5 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 59

REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 62

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 65

Appendix 1: Hughes, W.C and Flack, J.E’s (1984) Data ....................................... 66

Appendix 2: Ead, S.A and Rajaratnam, N.’s (2002) Data ...................................... 73

Appendix 3: Evcimen, T.U.’s (2005) Data ............................................................ 74

Appendix 4: Carollo, F.G, Ferro, V. and Pampalone, V.’s (2007) Data ................ 78

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks /E (Carollo et al. 2007)............................................................ 31

Table 4.2: Derived equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E (Hughes and Flack, (1984), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002),

Evcimen (2005))......................................................................................................... 33

Table 4.3: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Hughes

and Flack (1984)). ...................................................................................................... 36

Table 4.4: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Hughes and

Flack (1984), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002), Evcimen, (2005)). .................................. 39

Table 4.5: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in strong condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Evcimen, (2005)).

.................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.6: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effects, β and upstream

Froude number ........................................................................................................... 45

Table 4.7: Generated drag coefficient, CD, for each kind of roughness height, Ks. ... 49

Table 4.8: Generated drag force, Fd, for each kind of drag coefficient, CD ............... 52

Table 4.9: Dimensionless roller length equation........................................................ 55

Table 4.10: Generated equations for dimensionless roller length .............................. 58

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Hydraulic jump’s situation (Potter et. al., 2010) ....................................... 7

Figure 2.2: Various types of hydraulic jump (Potter et. al., 2010) .............................. 9

Figure 2.3: Schematic representative of hydraulic jump with roller length ............... 12

Figure 2.4: Parameters of a hydraulic jump on a rectangular prismatic channel ....... 13

Figure 2.5: Different types of roughness at the channel bed...................................... 18

Figure 3.1: Schematic representative of hydraulic jump and its rectangular

cross section ..................................................................................................... 20

Figure 4.1: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E, (Carollo. et al., 2007) ............................................... 31

Figure 4.2: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E (Hughes and Flack, 1984) ......................................... 32

Figure 4.3: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E (Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002) ..................................... 32

Figure 4.4: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E (Evcimen, 2005) ........................................................ 33

Figure 4.5: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition (Carollo. et. al.,

2007)…..............................................................................................................35

Figure 4.6: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition (Hughes and Flack,

1984) ................................................................................................................. 35

Figure 4.7: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition (Carollo. et. al., 2007) ..... 37

x
Figure 4.8: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition (Hughes and Flack, 1984) 37

Figure 4.9: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless

roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition (Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

.......................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 4.10: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump cond.(Evcimen, 2005)

.......................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 4.11: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in strong jump. (Carollo et al., 2007) 40

Figure 4.12: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in strong jump cond. (Evcimen, 2005)

.......................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.13: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and

dimensionless drag effect, β (Carollo et. al., 2007) .......................................... 43

Figure 4.14: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and

dimensionless drag effect, β (Hughes and Flack, 1984) ................................... 43

Figure 4.15: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and

dimensionless drag effect, β (Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002) ............................... 44

Figure 4.16: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and

dimensionless drag effect, β (Evcimen, 2005) ................................................. 44

Figure 4.17: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β (Carollo et.

al., 2007) ........................................................................................................... 46

Figure 4.18: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β (Hughes

and Flack, 1984) ............................................................................................... 47

xi
Figure 4.19: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β (Ead and

Rajaratnam, 2002)............................................................................................. 47

Figure 4.20: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β (Evcimen,

2005) ................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 4.21: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)

(Carollo et. al., 2007) ........................................................................................ 50

Figure 4.22: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)

Hughes and Flack, 1984) .................................................................................. 50

Figure 4.23: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)

(Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002) ............................................................................. 51

Figure 4.24: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)

Evcimen, 2005) ................................................................................................. 51

Figure 4.25: The relationship between K/E and dimensionless roller length,Lr/y1

(Carollo et. al., 2007) ........................................................................................ 54

Figure 4.26: The relationship between K/E and dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1

(Hughes and Flack, 1984) ................................................................................. 54

Figure 4.27: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and (y2/y1-

1)v1 (Carollo et. al. 2007)................................................................................. 56

Figure 4.28: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and (y2/y1-

1)v1 for different Ks values separately (Carollo et. al., 2007) ......................... 56

Figure 4.29: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and (y2/y1-

1)v1 (Hughes and Flack, 1984) ........................................................................ 57

Figure 4.30: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and (y2/y1-

1)v0 for different Ks values separately (Hughes and Flack, 1984) ............... 57

xii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

a1 The coefficient relating dimensionless drag effect and

dimensionless roughness effect

a2 The coefficient relating dimensionless drag effect and

upstream Froude number

a3 The coefficient relating dimensionless drag effect and

upstream Froude number

a4 The coefficient relating drag force and drag coefficient

a5 The coefficient relating dimensionless roller length and

(K/E)

a6 The coefficient relating dimensionless roller length and

(y2/y1 – 1)

Area of the channel cross section [m2]

Channel width of rectangular channel [m]

Frictional drag coefficient

d50 Average diameter size of the particles [m]

Amount of energy lost between upstream to downstream

energies [m]

Upstream energy [m]

Downstream energy [m]

Drag force [N]

Ff Friction force [N]

Lift force [N]

xiii
 Frictional drag force [N]

Pressure drag force [N]

Fp1 Upstream pressure force [N]

Fp2 Downstream pressure force [N]

Upstream Froude number

Effective upstream Froude number

Fw Weight force [N]

Gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

hc1 Centroid height of upstream cross section [m]

hc2 Centroid height of downstream cross section [m]

I Roughness density

K Retarding force coefficient

Ks Roughness height [m]

Roller length [m]

Hydraulic jump length [m]

L Length [m]

m Mass [Kg]

M Momentum [kg.m/s2]

P Pressure [N/m2]

Q Unit discharge [m2/s]

Q Discharge [m3/s]

S0 Bed slope

Re Reynolds number

T Time [s]

v1 Upstream flow velocity [m/s]

xiv
v2 Downstream flow velocity [m/s]

V Volume of a rectangular channel [m3]

W The distance between two consecutive bars in roughened

bed [m]

̅ The mean value of dependent variables

y1 Upstream depth of the hydraulic jump [m]

y2 Downstream depth of the hydraulic jump [m]

z Height of a prismatic cubic bar in Hughes-Flack’s

experiment [m]

Density [kg/m3]

Shear stress [N/m2]

Dynamic viscosity [kg/(m.s)]

Kinetic energy correction factor

Specific weight [N/m3]

β Dimensionless drag effect

xv
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Whenever the water is not capable to control its power, it releases its excess energy

and rearranges itself into a new balanced state. This phenomenon occurs naturally

and can be easily observed while wave breaks at coastal areas and where hydraulic

jump occurs in open channel flows.

Different researchers (Chow, 1959; Munson, 1990) have defined hydraulic jump

several times and in general, all these definitions can be simplified by defining the

jump as a rapid transition of flow from a high velocity condition into slower motion.

The hydraulic jump behavior of water in open channels can be used artificially in

order to get benefits for engineering applications. It can be used for energy

dissipation purposes at hydraulic structures in order to minimize the damages caused

by scouring. The increase in water levels after the hydraulic jump helps obtaining

higher heads for water distribution purposes like in irrigation channels. The chaotic

behavior of water during the jump helps to mix different chemicals without extra

energy requirements especially at water purification works. Among these

applications, energy dissipation is the most important phenomenon; and for this

purpose, roughened beds like corrugated bed, stilling basins, gravel bed, or

combination of these are generally designed. Generally, fixing the location of the

hydraulic jump, increasing the rate of the energy dissipation during the hydraulic

1
jump and minimizing the cost of the hydraulic structures are the main design

motivations in hydraulics engineering.

Two dominant hydraulic jump characteristics are the length of the jump and the

conjugate depths before and after the jump. These characteristics are usually used to

illustrate the amount of energy dissipation during the jump. The length of a jump can

be defined as the interim between the front face of the jump and the point exactly

after the jump where subcritical state has been formed whereas conjugate depths are

the depths exactly before and after the jump (figure 2.1) (Chow, 1959).

Rajaratnam (1968) has shown that the roughness of the surfaces decreases the length

of the jump and the tailwater depth in open channels. The decrease in the length of

the jump on the other hand helps to decrease the length of the stilling basins just at

the dam’s downstream side and cause to minimize the cost of this structure.

Ead and Rajaratnam (2002) improved the roughness studies by using corrugated beds

and illustrated that length of the jump on corrugated beds is half of the jump length

on smooth beds.

So far, several times it is proved that rough beds lead to reduction of the length of the

jump and depth of the tailwater (Rajaratnam, 1968; Hughes and Flack, 1984; Negm,

1996; Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002). It is obvious that, whenever the interaction of the

rough bed with flow occurs, shear stress increases and more energy dissipate

consequently.

2
In this current study, the momentum equation is used together with the drag force

relationship to obtain a reasonable drag coefficient in different rough bed

characteristics. For applying this, a coefficient β is introduced to the momentum

equation, which is modified by the drag force as a retarding force. The β values gave

the reasonable drag coefficients (CD), which are related to the geometry of the

roughness.

1.2 The Outcome of This Study

The substantial goal of the present study is to apprehend the influences of roughness

on hydraulic jumps by means of drag coefficient derived from momentum equations.

In chapter two, hydraulic jump characteristics in different situations were discussed.

Furthermore, the drag force and its effects explained. In addition, in literature review,

the studies carried out before related to the roughness effects on hydraulic jumps

were illustrated. In chapter 3, theoretical studies about the effect of the roughness on

the hydraulic jump characteristics, such as sequent depths ratio with respect to drag

force and the roller length and the relationship between them were expressed. In

chapter 4, graphical illustrations of the effects of roughness elements on the jump

characteristics were presented. In chapter 5, the results were summarized.

In Appendices, all experimental data, which was used for this study, is given.

3
1.3 Literatures Review

Rajaratnam (1968) carried out the early studies on hydraulic jump regarding rough

beds. In this work, relative roughness was considered as basin parameter and

upstream Froude number was chosen as flow parameter. His conclusion initiated new

discussions on hydraulic jump phenomena while searching for the effect of

roughness and Froude number on conjugate depths.

Later, Hughes and Flack (1984) in their laboratory experiments, assessed the effects

of impervious rough bed on hydraulic jump properties. Their experiments held in

horizontal rectangular flume with two different roughness geometries, one with

prismatic bars and another with gravels cemented on the basin. The laboratory

observation showed that both sequent depth and the length of the hydraulic jump

reduced due to the boundary roughness’s.

Huger and Bremen (1989) have studied on depth ratio change due to wall friction.

They have obtained that the Blanger equation is not valid for hydraulic jumps

occurring over rough beds. In their study, the determined limit for the scaling

deviation in between experimental data and theoretical calculation was 5 percent. It

was summed up that, observed deviation is due to scaling effects because of reducing

down the model dimensions, also those deviations exceeding these limits are brought

by the fluid viscosity effects.

Alhamid and Negm (1996) perused on hydraulic jump over rectangular, roughened

stilling basin and they have tested the effects of slope of the stilling basin on the flow

characteristic, such as the relationship in between the conjugate depths.

4
Ead and Rajaratnam (2002) investigated hydraulic jumps on corrugated beds for a

range of Froude number from 4 to 10 and three different relative roughness values

from 0.25 to 0.5. They concluded that the downstream water depths in hydraulic

jumps over corrugated basins are significantly smaller than jumps on smooth beds,

and the length of the jump on corrugated basins are half of the jumps on smooth

ones.

Evcimen (2005) investigated the influences of non-stuck out prismatic bars on jump

while altering the Froude numbers. He obtained that with given upstream condition,

the length of the jump and the depth of the tail water on roughened bed is shorter and

smaller than those on smooth beds.

Carollo et al. (2007) investigated the hydraulic jump on horizontal rough beds

experimentally. Experiments carried out to study the efficacy of roughened channel

surface on the sequent depths ratio and roller length. They have solved the

momentum equation and find its relationship with sequent depths, upstream Froude

number, Fr1, and the ratio between the roughness height, Ks, and the upstream flow

depth, y1. Results showed that, bed roughness diminishes the conjugate depth ratio,

also the roller length, Lr, decreases when roughness height, Ks, augments. As a result,

one boundary shear coefficient that can be approximated by the ratio between the

upstream supercritical depth, y1 and roughness height, Ks has been offered. They

suggested the following equation as drag roughness coefficient (CD),

( ( ) ) (1.1)

Afzal et al. (2011) offered an effective upstream Froude number which yields

universal predictions for sequent depth ratio, jump length, roller length, jump profile,

5
and the other hydraulic jump characteristics that are definitely independent of bed

roughness drag. They offered the conjugate depth ratio as

* √ + (1.2)

where, is the effective upstream Froude number where

[( )( )] (1.3)

where, is the kinetic energy correction factor, and also they suggested drag force

coefficient ( D) as follows,

* ( ) + (1.4)

6
 Chapter 2

FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS

2.1 Hydraulic Jump

When a flow passes from super critical regime to subcritical regime in open channels

hydraulic jump definitely occurs (Fig. 2.1). This phenomenon happens frequently in

the nature and also in man made structures such as at the regulation sluice, at the foot

of spillways or at a place where a steep slope channel suddenly changes into mild

slope. There are several hydraulic jump applications like, energy dissipation at the

downstream of a dam or at the sluice gate, or increasing the water depth within the

irrigation canal so as to divert the water to side canal or field; or to increase the water

depth in an apron to counteract the uplift pressure, also for mixing the chemicals and

for aeration in water distribution systems.

Figure 2.1: Hydraulic jump’s situation (Potter et. al., 2010)

7
2.1.1 Types of Hydraulic Jump

Hydraulic jump on horizontal surface can be conveniently classified in the following

categories according to Froude numbers (Figure 2.2); where Froude number can be

defined as the ratio of inertial forces to gravitational forces.

For incoming Froude number equal to 1 (Fr1 = 1), the flow is critical and therefore

no jump can form.

For , the undulations are shown by water surface and the jump is

called undular jump.

For , series of small roller form and the downstream water surface

remains smooth and the energy loss during this jump is low. This jump is called

weak jump.

For , an oscillating jet enters to the bottom of the hydraulic jump to

surface with no periodicity. This jump is called oscillating jump.

For , that is insensitive to downstream conditions. This jump is a

well-balanced jump that offers best performance. This jump is called steady jump.

For , jump is intermittent but has good performance. This jump is called

strong jump.

8
 Types of range Description Energy Schematic
Jump Dissipation

Undular Undulation are <5%

Jump shown by water
surface

Weak Jump Small roller forms 5% - 15%

but downstream
water surface
remains smooth

Oscillating Unstable, 15% - 45%

Jump Oscillating jet
enters to the
bottom of the
jump, creates large
waves

Steady Jump Well balanced 45% - 70%

jump which offers
best performance

Strong Jump jump is 70% - 85%

intermittent but
good performance

Figure 2.2: Various types of hydraulic jumps (Potter et. al., 2010)

9
2.1.2 Basic Characteristic of Hydraulic Jump

Hydraulic jump leads to a significant turbulence and dissipation of energy wherever

it occurs. The important parameters of the hydraulic jump are the conjugate depth,

the length of the jump and the energy dissipation.

a) Conjugate depth

Conjugate depth refers to the upstream depth or the super critical depth (y1) and the

downstream or the subcritical depth (y2) of the hydraulic jump.

The equation (Eq. 2.1), that demonstrates the conjugate depth ratio in hydraulic

jump, is known as Belanger equation, and is valid in smooth rectangular channels.

(√ ) (2.1)

where is the upstream depth and is the downstream depth of the jump, is

the upstream Froude number, which is

(2.2)
√

where “ ” is the average velocity of the upstream flow and “g” is the gravitational

acceleration.

Belanger equation is valid for smooth rectangular channels where the effect of

friction is neglected. As soon as the bed roughness’s become significant Belanger

equation needs to be modified and a new definitions must be proposed.

b) Length of the hydraulic jump and roller length

In the literature, two definitions are widely used for the length of the jump. In the

first definition, length of the jump is treated as the distance between the starting point

of the jump at the upstream of the flow and the point immediately after the last roller

at the downstream of the flow (roller length). The second definition is the distance

10
from the toe of the jump in supercritical side to the point where the flow surface

states in completely level (Chow, 1959).

In most of the publications, the length of hydraulic jump is not given in terms of

equations and usually defined either as a function of conjugate depths or as a

function of Froude Numbers. An example is the jump length that varies from 4.5

to 6.5 for Froude numbers between 4 and 15 (Potter et. al., 2010). In general, it is

preferred to define the length of hydraulic jump by means of experimental studies.

Seldom, there are numerical studies concentrated on proving a relationship for

hydraulic jump length (Ebrahimi et. al., 2013; Zhao and Misra, 2004; Abbaspour et.

al., 2009). Roller length is the length from the toe of the jump where the surface

roller starts until the last roller in downstream of the flow where the jump is going to

be completed at subcritical level (Figure 2.3).

Chow (1973) defines guidelines about how to estimate the roller length of hydraulic

jump as a function of upstream flow conditions. Hager et al. (1990) reviewed a wider

datasets and correlations. They suggested the following correlation (Equation 2.3) for

wide channel (i.e. <0.10) (Chanson, 2004), as:

( ) 2< <16 (2.3)

where is the roller length in meters. This equation is valid for rectangular

horizontal channels.

11
 Figure 2.3: Schematic representation of hydraulic jump with roller length

c) Hydraulic jump as an energy dissipater

Hydraulic jump is a useful phenomenon to dissipate excess energy of upstream

supercritical flow. It quickly reduces the velocity of the flow on a paved apron to

where the flow does not have the ability for scouring the downstream channel bed

below overflow spillways, chutes, and sluice gates (Chow, 1959).

The loss of energy in hydraulic jump is the difference between the specific energies

before and after the jump as shown in Figure 2.3.

The energy loss during hydraulic jump can be obtained from the following path,

(2.4)

Writing down the energy terms in an open forum results in,

(2.5)
( )

12
And also velocity, (v) can be expressed as (Q/A), hence, equation (2.4) is redefined

as,

( ) (2.6)

For the simplification of the above computations, unit discharge (q) can be replaced

the total discharge, Q of the flow. Unit discharge is defined as the total discharge (Q)

per unit width (B) of the channel. Hence,

( ) (2.7)

On the other hand, in fluid dynamics the momentum-force balance over a control

volume is

(2.8)

which is shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Parameters of a hydraulic jump on a rectangular prismatic channel

where, M is the momentum per unit time (mL/t2), is gravitational force due to

weight of water (mL/t2), is force due to friction drag (mL/t2) and is pressure

force (mL/t2). Subscripts 1 and 2 represent upstream and downstream locations,

respectively and units L = length, t = time and m = mass.

13
Applying the momentum-force balance in the direction of flow, in a horizontal bed

channel (i.e. Fw = 0) and neglecting the frictional force (smooth channel bed and

walls) equation (2.8) can be written as follows:

(2.9)

Substituting the components of momentum per unit time and pressure force (with

their respective positive or negative directions)

and ̅ (2.10)

and ̅ (2.11)

Finally the equation becomes

̅ ̅ (2.12)

where, mr is the mass flow rate (m/t), ρ is the fluid density (m/L3), Q is the flow rate

or discharge within the channel (L3/t), v is flow velocity (L/t), ̅ is the average

pressure (m/Lt2) and A is the cross sectional area of the flow (L2). Subscripts 1 and 2

represent upstream and downstream locations, respectively.

The equation 2.8, which is called the momentum equation, can be written as

( ) (2.13)

where, is the pressure force at upstream of the flow, is the pressure force at

the downstream.

Finally, from the momentum equation (Eq. 2.13) one can have,

( ) (2.14)

Dividing both side of equation by B, and g leads to

14
 [ ] (2.15)

Simplifying this equation will give,

( ) (2.16)

Substituting Eq. 2.16 in Eq. 2.7 results

( )( )( )
[ ]

Finally, it simplifies as

( ) (2.17)

2.2 Drag and Its Effects

When a particle passes through a fluid, an interaction happens between body of the

particle and the fluid; this effect results in forces between fluid and body joint; which

can be explained in terms of two kinds of stresses that are the wall shear stress ,

due to viscous effects and the normal stresses due to the pressure (P). Any particle

passing through a fluid is experiencing a drag, which is a net force in the flow

direction due to the shear forces and the pressure on the surface of the particle.

2.2.1 Friction Drag and Pressure Drag

Friction drag ( ) occurs due to the shear stress ( ). The friction drag on a flat

plate of width B and length L can be calculated from

(2.18)

where is the drag force coefficient. The magnitude of the drag force coefficient

depends on the Reynolds number and the relative roughness. Reynolds number can

be determined from the ratio of inertia forces and viscous forces whereas the relative

15
roughness, which is the result of the boundary layer analysis, can be determined

through experiments.

Pressure drag ( ), is that part of the drag which is due to the pressure (P), on the

object. Pressure drag usually refers as form drag, because it depends to the shape of

the object.

2.2.2 Drag Coefficient

As it is mentioned before, the net drag is due to both pressure and shear stress

effects. In most situations, these two effects are taken into account and a drag

coefficient ( ) which is defined in equation 2.13, is used. Information about the

drag coefficient covers compressible and incompressible viscous flows over any

shape of interest in both artificial and natural channels.

The analysis and effects of drag on objects is usually determined by means of

numerous experiments with water tunnels, wind tunnels, towing tanks etc. Almost all

of these studies concentrated on investigating drag on scale models. The gathered

data from these information can be put into dimensionless form and the results can

be further rationed for calculations. Typically, the resultant drag coefficient equation

for a special shaped object is given as

(2.19)

Munson (1990) said that, drag coefficient depends on several factors such as shape of

the surface, Reynolds number, compressibility, surface roughness and Froude

number.

2.2.3 Roughness and Drag Effects on Hydraulic Jump

Rajaratnam (1968) has done first investigations on how rough beds affect the

hydraulic jump. He mentioned that conjugate depth depends on roughness height.

16
The other researchers such as Hughes and Flack (1984), Huger and Bremen (1990),

Negm (1996) , Ead (2002), Evcimen (2005), Carollo et al. (2007) and Afzal (2011)

carried out their studies to analyze the effects of roughness in hydraulic jump and

they have concluded with different results for different bed roughness characteristics.

As a simplification, it can be said that, when hydraulic jump occurs at a rough bed,

conjugate depth y2 and the length of the jump will be shorter than those jumps

passing through smooth beds.

To develop a hydraulic jump and to augment energy dissipation, roughness elements

can be utilized over a channel surface. Roughness elements are in different shapes,

such as corrugated beds, gravels (pebbles and stones) and rectangular prismatic bars

(cubic bars).

Hughes and Flacks (1984) and Evcimen (2005) analyzed the energy dissipation at

hydraulic jumps in the presence of prismatic cubic bars with height “z”, and length of

“X” (Figure 2.5a). The bars were located at the distance of “W” in strip form, coating

the total breadth of the channel bed (Figure 2.5b) or formed in reeled shape, which is

illustrated in Figure 2.5c.

17
 Figure 2.5: Different types of roughness at the channel bed

Ead and Rajaratnam (2002) studied the effects of corrugation with a wave shape with

wavelength of “s” and amplitude of “Ks” (Figure 2.5d). It also can be placed to cover

the whole length of the basin.

Sometimes pebbles are considered as roughness elements. Gravel is favored because

of its cheap price, its availability in natural environment and easy transportation

18
possibilities. Generally, the median diameter size, d50, agreed as estimated roughness

height, Ks, for pebbles and gravels. On the other hand, there are no definite ways to

assess the average interim between gravel grains. Thus, the most significant property

on a gravel bed is the median diameter of the gravel grains that are considered as

roughness height, Ks. Gravel grains are placed to coat the entire bed surface as can be

observed in Figure 2.5e.

There is a lack of information about friction drag coefficient in different type of bed

materials in hydraulic jump situation, which is clarified in this study.

19
 Chapter 3

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION

3.1 Depth Ratio in Hydraulic Jumps

Momentum equation, which has been discussed before, is as follow,

( )

In case of mild slope where the slope is approximately zero, weight component can

be dropped, , in which

( ) (3.1)

Fp1 and Fp2 are the hydrostatic pressure forces. Fd is the drag force as it introduced

before in Equation 2.8.

(3.2)

(3.3)

where, is the distance from the water surface to the centroid of the upstream

rectangular cross section (Figure 3.1) which is , is the centroid of the

downstream rectangular cross section which is , is the specific weight of water

which is , is the cross sectional area of upstream part of the jump, is

the cross sectional area of downstream part of the jump.

Figure 3.1: Schematic representation of hydraulic jump and its rectangular

cross section

20
Substituting and in momentum equation (Eq. 3.1) will result;

( ) (3.4)

Dividing all the terms by γ;

( ) (3.5)

Inserting in terms of v1 and v2 results in;

(3.6)

which can be re-arranged as,

(3.7)

The term ( ) is known as specific force. In the case of rectangular channels

where A=By the discharge can be define in terms of unit discharge, q. Then unit

discharge is the ratio between the discharge and the width of the rectangular channel.

Therefore, equation (3.7) can be re-arranged by replacing Q with qB, and since B is

constant along the channel;

* + (3.8)

Substituting and into above equation will give;

[ ] (3.9)

Decomposing 2nd degree y terms into 1st degree gives,

* + (3.10)

( ) [* + ( )] (3.11)

21
In rectangular open channel flows, the discharge can be defined as

Q=Byv (3.12)

which can be simplified into

q=yv (3.13)

Thus above equation can be re-written in terms of water depth and flow velocity as;

( )* ( ) + (3.14)

Taking all the terms out of brackets,

( ) ( ) (3.15)

Collecting Froude number into brackets gives,

[ ] (3.16)

then, can be writing drag force as a subject of the formula,

[ ( ) ] (3.17)

[ ( ) ( )( )] (3.18)

Rewriting drag force in open form and substituting in the above equation leads to

(3.19)

[ ( ) ( )( )] (3.20)

Dividing all terms by and gives,

[ ( ) ( )( )] (3.21)

( ) ( ) (3.22)

22
The term on the right hand side of the equation is equal to β (dimensionless drag

effect),

(3.23)

Previous equation becomes;

( ) ( ) (3.24)

can be expressed as the multiplication of bottom width, B and length of the

jump, .

Hence,

( ) ( ) (3.25)

Multiplying both side of equation with ( ) will give,

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (3.26)

Bringing all terms to left hand side results

( ) ( )( ) (3.27)

If is 0 where CD is 0

( ) ( )( ) (3.28)

If uniform flow, then and y2 = y1.

If no, then

*( ) ( ) + [( ) ] (3.29)

let then the above equation can be written as;

23
[ ][ ] (3.30)

Since the second term cannot be equal to zero except at y1=y2 (which means no

hydraulic jump) then [ ] must be equal to zero. The roots of the

equation can be find simply by

√ (3.31)

which gives

* √ + (3.32)

The above equation is the famous Blanger hydrauic jump relationship for frictionless

environments.

However, If where

( ) ( )( ) (3.33)

where

(3.34)

According to Alhamid and Negm (1996), in the case of consecutive blocks as the

distributed roughness elements, the blocks are below the entire length of the jump

and the correct approach is to calculate the drag force due to each block, then

integrate them to obtain the total drag force to use in the momentum equation. The

average velocity at upstream section can be used as a representative velocity v1, as an

assumption for simplicity of driving the model, because v1 can be easily determined

by dividing the measured discharge by the cross sectional area at upstream section

which is well known. Rechecking the derived model with the experimental results

24
proved that this assumption works well. Therefore, the average velocity can be

accepted to be equivalent to upstream velocity (v1).

Therefore, substituting instead of causes,

(3.35)

Suppose

(3.36)

Then,

(3.37)

3.2 Roller Length in Hydraulic Jumps

The experimental studies of Pietrkowski (1932), Smetana (1937) and (Hager 1992)

suggest that one can assume roller length, Lr proportional to the difference between

the sequent depths as

[ ] (3.38)

in which coefficient is equal to 6, 5.5 and 5.2 according to Smetana (1937), Citrini

(1939), Mavis and Luksck (Hager et al. 1990) respectively. Carollo et al. (2007)

performed experiments and rewrote this equation and compared the findings with the

results of Hughes and Flack (1984) and Hager et al. (1990). Carollo et al. (2007)

concluded with one single number representing the coefficient, (a) as 4.616. Findings

attained a coefficient of determination equivalent to 0.92. In this study, a theoretical

approach will be carried out instead of experimental approach in order to define

formulation of roller length.

25
The net force occurring during the action of drag force on a solid surface is the

famous Newtonian second law where drag force proportionally depends on the

velocity of the flow.

(3.39)

Considering a column of liquid passing over a rough surface, mass can be written as

and the acceleration as , as the flow will act in the x-direction. The resultant

equation can be given as,

(3.40)

The drag force is function of density, , velocity, v and the area, A as,

( ) (3.41)

Therefore,

(3.42)

where K is retarding force coefficient. Rewriting the Equation 3.40 will give

(3.43)

For a fluid particle of cubic shape acting on an area of , Equation 3.43 can be

rewritten as

(3.44)

Simplifying the above equation leads to Equation 3.45

(3.45)

(3.46)

Solving Equation 3.46 results;

26
 ( ) (3.47)

Since ; Equation 3.28 can be defined as

( )

( ) (3.48)

Integrating equation 3.48 in which defines the roller length (Lr) as

[ ] (3.49)

As it is mentioned before ; and final roller length equation can be defined

as;

[ ] (3.50)

3.3 coefficient of determination, (R2)

In statistics, the coefficient of determination, (R2) is a number that indicates how well

data fit a statistical model, sometimes simply a line or curve. It is a statistic used in

the context of statistical models whose main purpose is either the prediction of future

outcomes or the testing of hypotheses, on the basis of other related information. It

provides a measure of how well observed outcomes are replicated by the model, as

the proportion of total variation of outcomes explained by the model (Glantz et. al.,

1990). The coefficient of determination ranges from 0 to 1 and it can be calculated

by the Equation 3.51.

(3.51)

Also and are total sum of squares and sum of squares of residuals

respectively and can be calculated by following equations.

27
 ∑( ̅) (3.52)

∑( ( )) (3.53)

Where ̅ is mean, yi is the i th value of the variable to be predicted, xi is the i th value

of the explanatory variable, and ( ) is the predicted value of yi.

3.4 Calculation of the Errors

Calculation of the Errors has been done based on mean absolute percentage error

(MAPE) method. In statistics, the mean absolute percentage error is the computed

average of percentage errors by which forecasts of a model differ from actual values

of the quantity being forecast.

The formula for the mean absolute percentage error is

| |
( ) ∑ (3.54)
| |

where ai is the actual value of the quantity being forecast, fi is the forecast, and no is

the number of different times for which the variable is forecast (Khan and Bartley,

2003).

Magnitude of mean absolute percentage error by considering the distance between

actual data and approximated data shows how large the error actually is; i.e, 100% of

MAPE says that the interim between forecasted value and actual value is two times

bigger than actual value; on the other hand, 1% of MAPE shows that the forecasted

value and actual value are 99% similar and the error in estimation between the

forecasted value and the actual value is negligible. It can be said that, the MAPE has

an inverse relationship with data accuracy; i.e., the smaller the mean absolute error,

the closer the forecasted data are to actual data; conversely, the larger mean absolute

percent error, the greater the difference in the forecasted value and the actual value.

28
 Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Friction Effect Analysis, Drag Force Coefficient and Drag Force

The relationship between parameters derived in previous chapters is analyzed in this

section. In general, the relationship between dimensionless drag effect (β) and

dimensionless roughness effects (Ks/E) are studied with respect to different

roughness heights and different Froude numbers. The relationship is developed for

the data series given by Carollo et al. (2007), Hughes and Flack (1986), Ead and

Rajaratnam (2002), and Evcimen (2005). As it can be seen in Equation 3.35,

dimensionless drag effect, (β) is a function of upstream Froude number, (Fr1) also.

Hence, the relationship between upstream Froude number, (Fr1) and the

dimensionless drag effect, (β) was studied. This relationship carried out for the same

datasets. Then, according to Equation 3.37, the relationship between coefficient α

and dimensionless drag effect, (β) used for finding drag coefficient, (CD) with respect

to all roughness heights. Finally, according to Equation 3.20, the relationship

between drag coefficient, (CD) and the drag force, (Fd) figured out for all datasets.

29
4.1.1 The obtained relationship between the dimensionless Drag Effect, (β) and

the dimensionless Roughness Effect, (Ks /E)

The variation of the dimensionless drag effect, (β) and the dimensionless roughness

effect (Ks/E) is given in Figure 4.1. The figure is plotted using the experimental

dataset of Carollo et al. (2007). The general trend of β with respect to (Ks/E) shows

an inverse relationship. As β increases Ks/E approaches zero, while Ks/E goes to

infinity as β diminishes. The solid lines in Figure 4.1 shows the best fit line through

experimental data for different Ks values. The equation of best fit lines for different

Ks values are given in Table 4.1. It is clear from Figure 4.1 that, the best fit line

between β and Ks/E through experimental data can be represented by

( ) (4.1)

In which a1 and are constants with n always being less than zero. The best linear fit

equations in respect of the present empirical models along with the coefficient of

determination (R2) are given in Table 4.1. Higher values of R2 associated with the β

and Ks/E reflects the fact that, their functional dependence is acceptable. For

comparative purposes, the utility of functional representation of other models

(Hughes and Flack (1986), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002), and Evcimen (2005)) were

examined and their results were interpreted as well.

30
 120
Ks = 0.46 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β 100
Ks = 0.82 cm
80
Ks = 1.46 cm

60 Ks = 2.39 cm

40 Ks = 3.2 cm

20

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.1: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E, (Carollo. et al., 2007)

Figure 4.1 is based on Carollo, et. al. (2007) dataset and it illustrates the trend line

obtained for each roughness height (Ks). Generated equations with coefficient of

determination and the mean absolute percentage error values are given in following

Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks /E (Carollo et al. 2007)
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a1 ,n; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.1; β 0.46 a1= 0.0001, n* = -2.83;
R2 = 0.94; MAPE=26.2
4.1; β 0.82 a1= 9E-05, n= -3.57;
R2 = 0.81; MAPE=221.1
4.1; β 1.46 β = a1(Ks/E)n a1= 0.0297, n= -2.08; Carollo et al.,
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=56.75 (2007)
4.1; β 2.39 a1= 0.4661, n= -1.55;
R2 = 0.81; MAPE=22.43
4.1; β 3.2 a1= 0.4736, n= -1.70;
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=11.99
*
n, is a constant

31
Figures (4.2 - 4.4) has depicted based on Hughes and Flack’s data (1986), Ead and

Rajaratnam (2002) and Evcimen (2005) and the equation of obtained trend line for

each roughness height (Ks) value is given in Table 4.2. MAPE value for different Ks

magnitudes show that the suggested equations are reliable for Ks values except

Ks=0.82 cm.

90
80 Ks = 0.32 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

70
Ks = 0.5 cm
60
50 Ks = 0.61 cm
40
Ks = 0.64 cm
30
20 Ks = 1.04 cm
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.2: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks/E (Hughes and Flack, 1984)

80

70
Ks = 1.3 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.3: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E (Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

32
 250

Ks = 0.6 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β 200 Ks = 1 cm

Ks = 2 cm
150

100

50

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.4: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E (Evcimen, 2005)

Table 4.2: Derived equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks/E (Hughes and Flack, (1984), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002),
Evcimen (2005)).
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a1 ,n; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.2; β 0.32 a1= 0.0295, n* = -1.43;
R2 = 0.34; MAPE=145.21
4.2; β 0.5 a1= 0.0507, n = -1.44;
R2 = 0.73; MAPE=81.46 Hughes and
4.2; β 0.61 β = a1 (Ks /E)n a1= 0.0796, n = -1.43; Flack,
R2 = 0.42; MAPE=99.83 (1984)
4.2; β 0.64 a1= 0.1158, n = -1.31;
R2 = 0.22; MAPE=54.63
4.2; β 1.04 a1= 0.9229, n = -0.92;
R2 = 0.46; MAPE=36.86
4.3; β 1.3 β = a1 (Ks /E)n a1= 0.9642, n = -0.965; Ead-
R2 = 0.82; MAPE=29.46 Rajaratnam,
(2002)
4.4; β 0.6 a1= 0.0383, n = -1.55;
R2 = 0.95; MAPE=12.24
4.4; β 1 β = a1 (Ks /E)n a1= 0.4365, n = -1.18; Evcimen,
2
R = 0.48; MAPE=20.07 (2005)
4.4; β 2 a1= 0.2064, n = -1.65;
R2 = 0.82; MAPE=20.99
*
n, is a constant

33
Regarding obtained R2 and MAPE values for the datasets, it can be said that the

suggested equation is not satisfying results of Hughes-Flacks’ experiments.

4.1.2 The relationship between Ks /E and β with respect to type of the jump

Previous analyses demonstrate good fit while predicting the relationship between β

and Ks/ΔE. On the other hand, since β is a function of dimensionless Froude number,

it should have a significant effect on the relationship between the two parameters.

Thereafter, it is decided to analyze the relationship between the β and Ks/ΔE

parameters for different hydraulic jump conditions. This has been achieved through

working at oscillating jump (2.5<Fr<4.5); steady jump (4.5<Fr<9) and strong jump

(9<Fr) conditions. This has been applied to Carollo et al. 2007; Hughes and Flack

(1986), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002), and Evcimen (2005). For oscillating jump

condition only Carollo et al. (2007) and Hughes and Flack (1984) dataset respecting

their Froude numbers can be utilized. In steady jump condition, all datasets can be

used. Moreover, for strong jump condition where upstream Froude number should be

greater than 9, just Carollo et al. (2007) and Evcimen (2005) can be used. Similar to

previous section, as β increases Ks/E approaches zero, while Ks/E goes to infinity

β diminishes. The solid lines in coming figures show the best fit line through

experimental data for different Ks values. In addition, the best fit line between β and

Ks/E through experimental data can be represented by the same equation 4.1.

Figure 4.5 and 4.6 represents the relationship between β and Ks/E for the dataset of

Carollo et al. (2007) and Hughes and Flack (1984), respectively. Solid lines in those

figures show the best fit line and the related equations for these lines have been given

in following table 4.3.

34
 Oscillating Jump Fr1 = 2.5
14
Ks = 0.46 cm
12
Ks = 0.82 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

10
Ks = 1.46 cm
8
Ks = 2.39 cm

6 Ks = 3.2 cm

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E

Figure 4.5: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition
(Carollo. et. al., 2007)

Oscillating Jump Fr1 = 2.5 - 4.5

6
Ks = 0.32 cm
5 Ks = 0.5 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

Ks = 0.64
4

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E

Figure 4.6: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)

35
Table 4.3: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks/E in oscillating jump condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Hughes
and Flack (1984)).
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a1 ,n; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.5; β 0.46 a1= 0.0001, n** = -2.79;
R2 = 0.87; MAPE=32.13
4.5; β 0.82 N/A*

4.5; β 1.46 β = a1(Ks /E)n a1= 0.0486, n = -1.83; Carollo et al.,

R2 = 0.9; MAPE=97.7 (2007)
4.5; β 2.39 N/A

4.5; β 3.2 a1= 0.829, n = -1.35;

R2 = 0.99; MAPE=7.66
4.6; β 0.32 a1= 0.0035, n = -2.09;
R2 = 0.99; MAPE=3.73 Hughes and
4.6; β 0.5 β = a1 (Ks /E)n a1= 0.0358, n = -1.60; Flack,
R2 = 0.52; MAPE=84.62 (1984)
4.6; β 0.64 a1= 0.1649, n = -1.29;
R2 = 0.53; MAPE=41.68
*
Represents no correlation between dependent and independent variables.
**
n, is a constant

Looking at Carollo’s experiment analysis shows that for Ks=1.46, MAPE value is

high even though R2=0.9. Hence the obtained equation is not proper for this

situation.

4.1.2.b Steady Jump Condition

Figures (4.7 – 4.10) bring out relationships between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness height, Ks/E for all data series when Froude number is

between 4.5 and 9 (steady jump condition). Solid lines show the best fit line and the

obtained equations for this line has been brought in following table 4.4. Similar to

previous results in this section, as β increases Ks/E approaches to zero, while Ks/E

goes to infinity as β decreases. But it is obvious that since in this situation Froude

number increases in comparison with oscillating jump condition the effect of low Ks

36
values on the flow decrease and there is weaker relationship and somewhere

unpredictable relationship between β and Ks/E in most of the cases.

Steady jump Fr1 = 4.5 - 9

80

70 Ks = 0.46 cm

Ks = 0.82 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

60

50 Ks = 1.46 cm

40 Ks = 2.39 cm

30 Ks = 3.2 cm

20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.7: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition
(Carollo et al., 2007)

60 Steady jump Fr1 = 4.5 - 9

Ks = 0.32 cm
50
Dimensionless drag effect, β

Ks = 0.5 cm

40 Ks = 0.61 cm

30 Ks = 0.64 cm

Ks = 1.04 cm
20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E

Figure 4.8: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
37
 Steady jump Fr1 = 4.5 - 9
60

Dimensionless drag effect, β 50

40

30

20

10
Ks = 1.3 cm

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.9: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition
(Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

Steady jump Fr1 = 4.5 - 9

70
Ks = 0.6 cm
60
Ks = 1 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β

50 Ks = 2 cm

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.10: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition
(Evcimen, 2005)

38
Table 4.4: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks/E in steady jump condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Hughes and
Flack (1984), Ead and Rajaratnam (2002), Evcimen, (2005)).
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a1,n; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.7; β 0.46 a1= 7E-05, n** = -2.96;
R2 = 0.82; MAPE=20.27
4.7; β 0.82 a1= 0.0016, n = -2.72;
R2 = 0.57; MAPE=40.5
4.7; β 1.46 β = a1(Ks /E)n a1= 0.0448, n = -1.96; Carollo et al.,
R2 = 0.9; MAPE=15.74 (2007)
4.7; β 2.39 a1= 0.5815, n = -1.47;
R2 = 0.77; MAPE=18.4
4.7; β 3.2 a1= 0.3488, n = -1.81;
R2 = 0.89; MAPE=14.01
4.8; β 0.32 N/A*

4.8; β 0.5 N/A Hughes and

Flack,
4.8; β 0.61 β = a1(Ks /E)n N/A (1984)

4.8; β 0.64 N/A

4.8; β 1.04 a1= 1.235, n = -0.84;

R2 = 0.4; MAPE=36.86
4.9; β 1.3 β = a1(Ks /E)n a1= 3.6228, n = -0.58; Ead-
R2 = 0.45; MAPE=23.56 Rajaratnam,
(2002)
4.10; β 0.6 a1= 0.0065, n = -1.94;
R2 = 0.81; MAPE=11.97
4.10; β 1 β = a1(Ks /E)n a1= 0.7934, n = -0.98; Evcimen,
R2 = 0.52; MAPE=14.29 (2005)
4.10; β 2 a1= 0.0177, n = -2.40;
R2 = 0.63; MAPE=19.83
*
Represents no correlation between dependent and independent variables
**
n, is a constant

Considering MAPE and R2 values, it is obvious that in steady jump condition the

suggested equation cannot be valid for most of the experiment results except

Carollo’s in which the R2 and MAPE are illustrating a good result for suggested

equation.

39
4.1.2.c Strong Jump Condition

Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show the relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness height, Ks/E for Carollo et al. (2007) and Evcimen (2005)

when Froude number is greater than 9 (strong jump condition). As it is mentioned

before, in this condition high speed flow governs the flow condition and given the

figures it can be seen that there is no relationship for Carollo et al. (2007) data. Solid

lines show the best fit line and the obtained equations for this line has been brought

in following table 4.5. For strong jump conditions, it can be concluded that Froude

increases extremely in comparison with oscillating jump conditions and the effect of

small Ks values on the flow becomes negligible predicting uncertain relationship for

Carollo et al. (2007) data.

Strong jump Fr1> 9

120

100
Dimensionless drag effect, β

80

60

40

20
Ks = 3.2 cm
0
0.045 0.046 0.047 0.048 0.049 0.05 0.051 0.052
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E
Figure 4.11: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and
dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in strong jump condition
(Carollo et al., 2007)

40
 Strong jump Fr1> 9
250
Ks = 0.6 cm
Dimensionless drag effect, β 200 Ks = 1 cm
Ks = 2 cm
150

100

50

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Dimensionless roughness effect, Ks /E

Figure 4.12: The relationship between dimensionless drag effect, β and

dimensionless roughness effect, Ks/E in strong jump condition
(Evcimen, 2005)

Table 4.5: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effect, β and dimensionless
roughness effect, Ks/E in strong condition (Carollo et al. (2007), Evcimen, (2005)).
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a1,n; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient, R2;
drag effect MAPE (%)
4.11; β 0.46 N/A* N/A
4.11; β 0.82 N/A N/A Carollo et al.,
4.11; β 1.46 N/A N/A (2007)
4.11; β 2.39 N/A N/A
4.11; β 3.2 N/A N/A
4.12; β 0.6 a1= 0.0873, n** = -1.38;
R2= 0.92; MAPE=11.04 Evcimen,
4.12; β 1 β = a1(Ks /E)n
N/A (2005)
4.12; β 2 a1= 0.457, n = -1.44;
R2= 0.7012; MAPE=20.58
*
Represents no correlation between dependent and independent variables
**
n, is a constant

With respect to R2 and MAPE values for presented data, it can be said that this

equation is satisfying Evcimen’s experimental results in most of the cases.

41
As it can be seen in relationship between Ks/E and β, there is a concave shape

power type trend line with good regression for most of the data sets. Totally, as the

Ks/E decreases β tends to infinity. Even though the R2 value is near to one in some

situations, high MAPE value shows that the suggested equations are not fitting the

data well.

4.1.3 Relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and dimensionless

drag effect, β

The performance of the formulization given for dimensionless drag effect is a

function of Froude number. Following figures show plots between β and Fr1 for

different Ks values. Results show that for small and constant Froude numbers β

increases as the Ks value increases. However, as the occurrence of strong hydraulic

jump increases, steep increase on β is observed independent of the magnitude of Ks.

The effect of strong hydraulic jump is presented in Figure 4.16. This shows the linear

increase of dimensionless drag coefficient, β, independent of changes in Ks. It can be

also observed from other figures that for Fr>9 conditions the dimensionless drag

effect and Froude number behaves independent of roughness, Ks and thus the

relationship between the parameters becomes unpredictable. As a result, the scatter

of data in Figures (4.13 - 4.15) indicates that β is not only a function of Fr but also

affected from the magnitude of Ks. The best fit line of experimental results,

coefficient of correlation, R2 and mean absolute percentage error, (MAPE) can be

represented by power equation as given in Table 4.6.

42
 120

Dimensionless drag effect, β 100

80

60

Ks = 0.46 cm
40
Ks = 0.82 cm
Ks = 1.46 cm
20
Ks = 2.39 cm
Ks = 3.2 cm
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Upstream Froude number, Fr1
Figure 4.13: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and
dimensionless drag effect, β (Carollo et. al., 2007)

90

80
Dimensionless drag effect, β

70

60

50

40

30 Ks = 0.32 cm
Ks = 0.5 cm
20
Ks = 0.61 cm
10 Ks = 0.64 cm
Ks = 1.04 cm
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Upstream Froude number, Fr1
Figure 4.14: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and
dimensionless drag effect, β (Hughes and Flack, 1984)

43
 90

80

70
Dimensionless drag effect, β

60

50

40
.
30

20
Ks = 1.3 cm - Ead and
10 Rajaratnam

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Upstream Froude number, Fr1

Figure 4.15: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and
dimensionless drag effect, β (Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

255

205
Dimensionless drag effect, β

155

105

Ks = 0.6 cm
55
Ks = 1 cm

Ks = 2 cm
5
0 5 10 15 20
Upstream Froude number, Fr1
Figure 4.16: The relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and
dimensionless drag effect, β (Evcimen, 2005)

44
Table 4.6: Generated equations for dimensionless drag effects, β and upstream
Froude number
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks a2 , a3 , n2 , b3 ; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.13; β 0.46 a2= 0.0025, n2*= 4.79;
R2 = 0.94; MAPE=22.59
4.13; β 0.82 a2= 0.0025, n2= 4.79;
R2 = 0.94; MAPE=94
4.13; β 1.46 ( ) a2= 0.0121, n2= 4.05; Carollo et
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=17.34 al.,
4.13; β 2.39 a2= 0.1561, n2= 2.84; (2007)
R2 = 0.996; MAPE=6.29
4.13; β 3.2 a2= 0.1372, n2= 2.93;
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=5.34
4.14; β 0.32 a2= 0.0045, n2= 4.14;
R2 = 0.62; MAPE=91.38
4.14; β 0.5 a2= 0.0232, n2= 3.28;
R2 = 0.78; MAPE=71.26 Hughes
4.14; β 0.61 ( ) a2= 0.0129, n2= 3.66; and Flack,
R2 = 0.72; MAPE=64.42 (1984)
4.14; β 0.64 a2= 0.0236, n2= 3.26;
R2 = 0.39; MAPE=39.96
4.14; β 1.04 a2= 0.1445, n2= 2.52;
R2 = 0.71; MAPE=27.63
( ) a2= 0.3011 n2= 2.42; Ead-
4.15; β 1.3 R2 = 0.99; MAPE=6.99 Rajaratna
m,
(2002)
4.16; β 0.6 a3= 16.465, b3= 103.3;
R2 = 0.96; MAPE=12.94
4.16; β 1 ( ) a3= 12.986, b3= 70.65; Evcimen,
R2 = 0.62; MAPE=20.04 (2005)
4.16; β 2 a3= 17.131, b3= 110.17;
R2 = 0.84; MAPE=21.83
*
n2 is a constant

β gradually increases with increasing upstream Froude number until some value then

it increases with steeper slope or sharper with increasing Froude number. It shows

that after some Froude numbers the effects of Ks decreases and beta suddenly

increases. Also, it can be seen in Figures (4.13 – 4.15) that when Ks has smaller

value, the curvature of the fit lines is intense with more bend, but when the Ks

increases this trend line tends to shape as straight line. MAPE and R2 values show

45
that except some cases such as Carollo’s Ks=0.82 and Hughes and Flack’s dataset

where the MAPE value is greater than satisfactory level even with high R2, it’s an

acceptable relationship between upstream Froude number, Fr1 and dimensionless

drag effect, β.

4.1.4 Relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β

According to Equation 3.37, it comes to search about drag coefficient, CD from

relating dimensionless drag effect, β and α. Figures (4.17 – 4.20) show the

relationship between β and α and it is obvious as β increases α increases also. The

solid lines in coming Figures show the best fit line through experimental data for

different Ks values. The equation of best fit lines obtained through the regression

analysis of experimental data has been figured out in Table 4.7. The table

summarizes the magnitudes of drag coefficient, CD during the hydraulic jump. The

result shows reliable CD values for different Ks values.

120
Ks = 0.46 cm -
Carollo et. al.
100
Dimensionless drag effect, β

Ks = 0.82 cm -
80 Carollo et. al.

60 Ks = 1.46 cm -
Carollo et. al.

40 Ks = 2.39 cm -
Carollo et. al.

20
Ks = 3.2 cm -
Carollo et. al.
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
α

Figure 4.17: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β

(Carollo et. al., 2007)

46
 92
Ks = 0.32 cm -
82 Hughes and FLack
72
Dimensionless drag effect, β

Ks = 0.5 cm -
62 Hughes and Flack

52 Ks = 0.61 cm -
Hughes and Flack
42

32 Ks = 0.64 cm -
Hughes and Flack
22

12 Ks = 1.04 cm -
Hughes and Flack
2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
α
Figure 4.18: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)

90

80

70
Dimensionless drag effect, β

60

50

40

30

20 Ks = 1.3 cm - Ead
and Rajaratnam
10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
α
Figure 4.19: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β
(Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

47
 250

200
Dimensionless drag effect, β

150

100
Ks = 0.6 cm - Evcimen

50 Ks = 1 cm - Evcimen

Ks = 2 cm - Evcimen
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
α
Figure 4.20: The relationship between α and dimensionless drag effect, β
(Evcimen, 2005)

Obtained equations from trend lines with correlation coefficients regarding their

roughness height, Ks value has been figured out in table 4.7. As it can be observed

from the table, obtained linear equation cannot be valid for Hughes and Flack’s

experimental results and when Ks is 0.82 cm for Carollo’s experimental results this is

because R2 value is not near to 1 and MAPE value is high. The suggested linear

equation for fitting trend line can be valid for the other experimental data.

48
Table 4.7: Generated drag coefficient, CD, for each kind of roughness height, Ks.
figure roughness equation coefficients of equation, data set
number; height, Ks type CD , b4 ; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient,
drag effect R2; MAPE (%)
4.17; β 0.46 CD = 0.0173, b4*= -1.44;
R2 = 0.95; MAPE=33.81
4.17; β 0.82 CD = 0.0231, b4= -5.28;
R2 = 0.83; MAPE=129.6
4.17; β 1.46 β=CD(α)+b4 CD = 0.0279, b4= -3.28; Carollo et al.,
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=31.64 (2007)
4.17; β 2.39 CD = 0.0371, b4= -1.60;
R2 = 0.95; MAPE=9.95
4.17; β 3.2 CD = 0.0351, b4= -0.21;
R2 = 0.97; MAPE=6.88
4.18; β 0.32 CD = 0.0089, b4= -2.61;
R2 = 0.56; MAPE=145.71
4.18; β 0.5 CD = 0.0062, b4= -0.07;
R2 = 0.69; MAPE=75.56 Hughes and
4.18; β 0.61 β=CD(α)+b4 CD = 0.0132, b4= -5.64; Flack,
R2 = 0.85; MAPE=102.75 (1984)
4.18; β 0.64 CD = 0.0091, b4= -1.34;
R2 = 0.55; MAPE=54.63
4.18; β 1.04 CD = 0.0054, b4= -8.52;
R2 = 0.35; MAPE=39.75
4.19; β 1.3 β=CD(α)+b4 CD = 0.0164, b4= 7.99; Ead-
R2 = 0.96; MAPE=17.54 Rajaratnam,
(2002)
4.20; β 0.6 CD = 0.0081, b4= 13.94;
R2 = 0.94; MAPE=17.08
4.20; β 1 β=CD(α)+b4 CD = 0.0054, b4= 35.87; Evcimen,
R2 = 0.45; MAPE=26.05 (2005)
4.20; β 2 CD = 0.0071, b4= 27.01;
R2 = 0.79; MAPE=27.58
*
b4 is a constant

4.1.5 Relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd

The relationship between drag force, Fd calculated by the help of equation 3.20 and

drag coefficient CD is searched out in this section.

In general there is a linear relationship between the drag force and drag coefficient.

Following plots attempts to define the correlation between the two parameters in case

of hydraulic jump. In most of the plots, the data are not satisfactorily distributed

49
along a solid line, derived from regression analysis. However, except small Ks values

of Carollo et al. (2007) and Hughes and Flack (1984), poor correlation between the

drag coefficient and drag force is observed. The equation of the best fit lines obtained

and has been brought in Table 4.8.

120

Ks = 0.46 cm -
100
Carollo et. al
Ks = 0.82 cm -
drag force, Fd (N)

80
Carollo et. al
Ks = 1.46 cm -
60 Carollo et. al
Ks = 2.39 cm -
40 Carollo et. al
Ks = 3.2 cm -
20 Carollo et. al

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
drag coefficient, CD
Figure 4.21: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)
(Carollo et. al., 2007)

20
Ks = 0.32 cm -
18
Hughes and Flack
16
drag force, Fd (N)

Ks = 0.5 cm -
14
Hughes and Flack
12
10 Ks = 0.61 cm -
Hughes and Flack
8
6 Ks = 0.64 cm -
Hughes and Flack
4
2 Ks = 1.04 cm -
Hughes and Flack
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
drag coefficient, CD
Figure 4.22: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)

50
 120

100
Ks = 1.3 cm -
Ead and
drag force, Fd (N)

80 Rajaratnam

60

Ks = 2.2 cm -
40 Ead and
Rajaratnam
20

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
drag coefficient, CD
Figure 4.23: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)
(Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)

40

35
Ks = 0.6 cm -
Evcimen
30
drag force, Fd (N)

25

20 Ks = 1 cm -
Evcimen
15

10
Ks = 2 cm -
5 Evcimen

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
drag coefficient, CD
Figure 4.24: The relationship between drag coefficient, CD and drag force, Fd (N)
(Evcimen, 2005)

51
Obtained equations from trend lines with correlation coefficients regarding their

roughness height, Ks and mean absolute percentage error, MAPE, has been figured

out in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Generated drag force, Fd, for each kind of drag coefficient, CD
figure roughness equation coefficients of equation, data set
number; drag height, Ks type a4 ,n3; reference
force (N) (cm) correlation coefficient,
R2; MAPE (%)
4.21; Fd 0.46 a4= 5191.1, n3**= 1.79;
R2 = 0.93; MAPE=15.59
4.21; Fd 0.82 a4= 622.2, n3= 0.92;
R2 = 0.85; MAPE=34.74
4.21; Fd 1.46 ( ) a4= 9377.2, n3= 1.47; Carollo et al.,
R2 = 0.93; MAPE=15.24 (2007)
4.21; Fd 2.39 N/A*
4.21; Fd 3.2 N/A
4.22; Fd 0.32 a4= 1267.3, n3= 1.13;
R2 = 0.84; MAPE=38.32
4.22; Fd 0.5 a4= 347.18, n3= 1.02;
R2 = 0.53;MAPE=67.25 Hughes and
4.22; Fd 0.61 ( ) a4= 1248, n3= 1.20; Flack,
R2 = 0.7; MAPE=38.83 (1984)
4.22; Fd 0.64 a4= 342.92, n3= 0.95;
R2 = 0.83; MAPE=37.94
4.22; Fd 1.04 a4= 458.22, n3= 0.94;
R2 = 0.57; MAPE=28.09
4.23; Fd 1.3 N/A N/A Ead-
4.23; Fd 2.2 N/A N/A Rajaratnam,
(2002)
4.24; Fd 0.6 N/A N/A
4.24; Fd 1 N/A N/A
Evcimen,
4.24; Fd 2 N/A N/A (2005)
*
Represents no correlation between dependent and independent variables.
**
n3 is a constant

Considering MAPE and R2 values, from the above graphs, it can be observed that

drag force increases as drag coefficient increases and there are meaningful

relationship between them as long as Ks has got small values. In figure 4.21, it is

obvious that for Ks=2.39 and Ks=3.2 there is no relationship between drag force and

drag coefficient.

52
4.2 Roller Length

As it is mentioned in previous chapter, the roller length studies are nowadays

motivated to find an equation for roller length as a function of hydraulic jump

properties. Based on Equation 3.50 derived in Chapter 3, roller length was defined as

dimensionless, together with upstream water depth. In general, the relationship

between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and K/E ratio in which K is the

coefficient of the equation, is searched out with respect to different roughness height

(Ks). This investigation has been done with the help of data series given by Carollo et

al. (2007), Hughes and Flack (1986). In first section of this part it showed how

dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 behaves with changing K/E ratio. The aim was to

find coefficient K to be used in the Equation 3.50 for different bed roughnesses.

4.2.1 Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1, and K/E

The variation of dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and K/E ratio is given in Figures

(4.25-4.26). The figures are depicted with all experimental results, which have been

pointed out before. The trend of Lr/y1 with respect to (K/E) is obeying an inverse

relationship. As Lr/y1 increases, K/E approaches zero, coinciding while K/E goes

to infinity Lr/y1 decreases. The solid line is the best fit line for different Ks values.

The equation of best fit lines for different Ks values are given in Table 4.9. It is clear

from Figures (4.25-4.26) that, the best fit line between Lr/y1 and K/E through

experimental data can be represented by Equation 4.2.

53
 ( ) (4.2)

In which a5 and n4 are constants with n4 always being less than zero (0). The best

linear fit equations with the coefficient of determination (R2) and mean absolute

percentage error, MAPE are given in Table 4.9. Higher values of R2 associated with

the Lr/y1 and K/E reflects the fact that their functional dependence is acceptable.

45
Dimensionless roller length ( Lr / y1 )

Ks = 0.46 cm
40 Ks = 0.82 cm
35 Ks = 1.46 cm
Ks = 2.39 cm
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K/E (1/m)

Figure 4.25: The relationship between K/E and dimensionless roller

length,Lr/y1 (Carollo et. al., 2007)

70
Ks = 0.32 cm
Dimensionless roller length ( Lr / y1

60 Ks = 0.5 cm
50 Ks = 0.61 cm
Ks = 0.64
40
Ks = 1.04 cm
30
)

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K/E (1/m)
Figure 4.26: The relationship between K/E and dimensionless roller length,
Lr/y1 (Hughes and Flack, 1984)
54
Table 4.9: Dimensionless roller length equation
figure roughness equation type coefficients of equation, Data set
number; height, Ks a5 ,n4 ; reference
dimensionless (cm) correlation coefficient, R2;
roller length MAPE (%)
4.25; Lr /y1 0.46 a5= 53.137, n4*= -0.84
R² = 0.9216; MAPE=5.51
4.25; Lr /y1 0.82 a5= 56.558 n4= -0.81
R² = 0.7679; MAPE=8.08
4.25; Lr /y1 1.46 a5= 39.983 n4= -0.66 Carollo
( ) R² = 0.9557; MAPE=3.77 et al.,
4.25; Lr /y1 2.39 a5= 36.614 n4= -0.72 (2007)
R² = 0.8614; MAPE=3.26
4.25; Lr /y1 3.2 a5= 40.629 n4= -0.89
R² = 0.9518; MAPE=4.81
4.26; Lr /y1 0.32 a5= 72.243 n4= -0.66
R² = 0.8579; MAPE=8.25
4.26; Lr /y1 0.5 a5= 74.906 n4= -0.78 Hughes
R²=0.9288; MAPE=10.85 and Flack,
4.26; Lr /y1 0.61 a5= 62.934 n4= -0.66 (1984)
( ) R² = 0.742; MAPE=11.38
4.26; Lr /y1 0.64 a5= 61.538 n4= -0.64
R² = 0.9035; MAPE=7.59
4.26; Lr /y1 1.04 a5= 58.29 n4= -0.64
R² = 0.787; MAPE=8.9
*
n4 is a constant

Considering R2 and MAPE values, it can be said that suggested equation (4.2) is

acceptable to calculate dimensionless roller length for the datasets.

4.2.2 Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1, and depth ratio

(y2 / y1 -1)v1

According to Equation 3.50, a relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1

and depth ratio, (y2 / y1 -1)v1 to figure out coefficient K and clarify how does it

behave. For this purpose, coming Figures (4.27-4.30) depicted to show the

coefficient K differences with respect to different roughness height Ks values. It is

clear from figures when dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1 increases coinciding depth

ratio, (y2 / y1 -1)v1 increases. Figures show that there are linear relationship between

Lr/y1 and (y2 /y1 -1)v1 as follows.

55
 ( ) (4.3)

The solid lines in coming Figures show the best fit line through experimental data for

different Ks values. The equation of best fit lines obtained through the regression

analysis of experimental data with the coefficient of correlation, R2 and MAPE

values has been figured out in Table 4.10.

45
40
35
Dimensionless roller length ( Lr / y1

30
25
20
15
)

10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
( y2 / y1 -1)v1 (m/s)

Figure 4.27: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and ( y2 / y1 -1)v1
for all Ks values (Carollo et. al., 2007)

45
Dimensionless roller length ( Lr / y1 )

40
35
30
25 Ks = 0.46
20
Ks = 0.82
15
Ks = 1.46
10
cm
5 Ks = 2.39
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
( y2 / y1 -1)v1 (m/s)
Figure 4.28: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and
( y2 / y1 -1)v1 for different Ks values separately (Carollo et. al., 2007)

56
 80

70

Dimensionless roller length (Lr / y1 ) 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
( y2 / y1 -1)v1 (m/s)
Figure 4.29: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr/y1 and
(y2 / y1 -1)v1 for all Ks values (Hughes and Flack, 1984)

70

60
Dimensionless roller length ( Lr / y1 )

50

40

Ks = 0.32 cm
30
Ks = 0.5 cm
20 Ks = 0.61 cm
Ks = 0.64 cm
10
Ks = 1.04 cm
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
( y2 / y1 -1)v1 (m/s)

Figure 4.30: Relationship between dimensionless roller length, Lr /y1 and

(y2 / y1 -1)v1 for different Ks values separately (Hughes and Flack, 1984)

57
Table 4.10: Generated equations for dimensionless roller length
figure number; roughness coefficients of equation, data set
dimensionless height, Ks equation type a6 , b5 ; reference
roller length (cm) correlation coefficient,
R2; MAPE (%)
4.27; Lr /y1 All Ks a6= 0.815, b5*= 9.16
values R² = 0.7634; MAPE=7.9
4.28; Lr /y1 0.46 a6= 1.2319, b5= 3.73
R² = 0.83; MAPE=10.06
4.28; Lr /y1 0.82 a6= 1.063, b5= 6.85
( ) R² = 0.6961; MAPE=9.39 Carollo
et al.,
4.28; Lr /y1 1.46 a6= 0.6828, b5= 10.10
(2007)
R² = 0.9292; MAPE=4.45
4.28; Lr /y1 2.39 a6= 0.5801, b5= 12.50
R² = 0.8309; MAPE=3.55
4.28; Lr /y1 3.2 a6= 0.7329, b5= 9.12
R² = 0.9327; MAPE=4.63
4.29; Lr /y1 All Ks a6= 2.0038, b5= 9.90
values R² = 0.9753; MAPE=9.05
4.30; Lr /y1 0.32 a6= 1.67, b5= 12.82
R² = 0.8575; MAPE=6.65
4.30; Lr /y1 0.5 a6= 2.0038, b5= 9.90
( ) R² = 0.9753; MAPE=6.82 Hughes
and
4.30; Lr /y1 0.61 a6= 1.1694, b5= 17.53
Flack,
R² = 0.8878; MAPE=7.39
(1984)
4.30; Lr /y1 0.64 a6= 2.0386, b5= 7.73
R² = 0.8643; MAPE=7.59
4.30; Lr /y1 1.04 a6= 1.4862, b5= 12.40
R² = 0.9256; MAPE=4.91
*
b5 is a constant

Considering R2 and MAPE values, it can be said that suggested Equation (4.3) is

reliable to calculate dimensionless roller length for the datasets and retarding

coefficient K.

Obtaining equations from dimensionless roller length (Lr /y1) versus (y2 / y1 -1)v1,

leads to gain “K” value which is retarding force coefficient in Equation 3.50. In

above obtained equations, coefficient “a6” gives (1/K) amount for all kind of Ks

values.

58
 Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

This study introduced a solution for the hydraulic jump on a rough bed by integrating

the drag force equation into the momentum equation (Eq. 3.20). Using the Initially, it

is assumed that the well-known Belanger’s equation is not satisfactorily representing

the relationship between conjugate depth and Froude numbers. Under this

assumption, momentum equation is rewritten to integrate the effect of surface

friction on physical behavior of the hydraulic jump. The resultant relationship given

by Equation 3.23 was successful to help deriving a relationship between different

parameters enrolled in the friction effects on hydraulic jump. Using the experimental

results of previous studies like Carollo et. el. (2007), Hughes and Flack (1984), Ead

and Rajaratnam (2002), and Evcimen (2005), the parameters like dimensionless

roughness effect, (Ks /E) and dimensionless drag effect, ( ) were analyzed and

evaluated. The results show that Drag force has a significant effect on hydraulic

jumps on rough surfaces. It was important to define a relationship for drag

coefficient, CD, in terms of β parameter. The semi-empirical equation of roller length

(Lr) is improved by means of drag force equation. The semi-empirical relationship

was showing that the coefficient of roller length increases as roughness of surfaces

increases.

Regarding the magnitudes of mean absolute percentage error, (MAPE) and

coefficient of determination (R2), it can be concluded that the power type equation

59
(Eq. 4.1) is satisfying the relationship between and Ks /E in all experimental

results except Hughes-Flack’s datasets and Evcimen’s dataset except when Ks = 1

cm. Also equation (Eq. 4.1) expressed a good relationship between and Ks /E for

different hydraulic jump conditions; for oscillating jump condition in Carollo’s

experimental results when Ks = 3.2 cm and in Hughes-Flack’s experimental results

when Ks = 0.32 cm; for steady jump condition, in Carollo’s experimental results; and

also for strong jump condition in Evcimen’s experimental results when Ks = 0.6 cm

and Ks = 2 cm.

MAPE and R2 magnitudes show that, Fr1 and β follow a good power relationship for

most of datasets except Evcimen’s experimental results which is following a linear

relationship and the reason is due to the strong jump condition (Fr1 > 9) of

experiments.

The results of regression analysis depicted good correlation between α and β

(R2=0.83~0.97) when simulated with the dataset of Carollo’s experimental results.

The MAPE of the simulated data of regression equations were also approving the

good correlation of the results.

Considering MAPE and R2 values, it can be said that there is a good power type

relationship between CD and Fd in results of Hughes-Flack experiments and also for

smaller Ks values in Carollo’s experimental result except Ks = 2.39 and Ks = 3.2 cm.

With respect to regression and error analysis dimensionless roller length, (Lr/y1) and

K/E are obeying a reliable power type relationship for both Hughes-Flack’s and

Carollo’s Experimental results.

60
MAPE and R2 values show that there is a strong linear relationship between

dimensionless roller length, (Lr/y1) and (y2/y1 – 1)v1 for both Carollo and Hughes-

Flack’s datasets and this linear equation produces coefficient K values for all Ks

values. Totally, it can be said that, generated equations 4.2 and 4.3 are satisfying both

Hughes-Flack’s and Carollo’s experimental results very well.

Even though in most of the analyses good trends are obtained between the

parameters, yet it is not possible to obtain only one equation representing the effect

of bed roughness on the magnitudes of dimensionless drag effect, or dimensionless

roller length. It is expected that in the future studies, the outcomes of this study can

be further developed with new generation models of optimization theories like

artificial neural network or genetic algorithm to simulate all the variables in one

relation.

61
 REFERENCES

Abbaspour, A., Farsadizadeh, D., Hosseinzadeh A. D., Sadraddini, A. A. (2009).

Numerical study of hydraulic jumps on corrugated beds using turbulence models.

Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci., 33 (2009), 61 – 72.

Afzal, N., Bushra, A., Seena, A. (2011). Analysis of turbulent hydraulic jump over a

transitional rough bed of a rectangular channel: universal relations. Journal of

Engineering Mechanics. 137(12), pp. 835-845.

Alhamid, A. A., Negm, A. M., (1996). Depth ratio of hydraulic jump in rectangular

stilling basins. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 34(5), pp. 597-604.

Armstrong, J. S. (1985). Long-range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer,

2nd. ed. Wiley.

Bidone, G. (1819, December 12). observations on the height of hydraulic jump in

1818. meeting of the Royal Academy of Science of Turin and later incorporated

as a part of [2], pp. 21-80.

Carollo, F. G., Ferro, V., and Pampalone, V. (2007). Hydraulic Jumps on Rough

Beds. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 133, No. 9, pp. 989-999.

Chanson, H. (2004). Hydraulics of open channel flow : An Introduction.

(Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK), 2nd Edition, pp. 51-63

62
Chow, V. T. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. (McGraw-Hill International: New

Yok, USA).

Chow, V. T. (1973). Open Channel Hydraulics. (McGraw-Hill International: New

Yok, USA).

Ead, S. A., and Rajaratnam, N. (2002). Hydraulic Jumps on Corrugated Beds.

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 138(7), 656-663.

Ebrahimi S, Salmasi F, Abbaspour A. (2013). Numerical Study of Hydraulic Jump

on Rough Beds Stilling Basins. J. Civil Eng. Urban. 3(1), 19-24.

Evcimen, T. U. (2005). The Effect of Prismatic Roughness Elements on Hydraulic

Jump. M. Sc. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil

Engineering, Ankara, Turkey.

Glantz, Stanton A., Slinker, B. K. (1990). Primer of Applied Regression and

Analysis of Variance, McGraw-Hill, pp. 187-287.

Hager, W. H., Bremen, R., and Kawagoshi, N. (1990). Classical hydraulic jump:

length of roller, Journal of Hydraulic Research. IAHR, 28(5), 591-608.

Hager, W. H. (1992). Energy dissipater and hydraulic jump. Kluwer academic

publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands.

63
Hughes, W. C., and Flack, J. E. (1984). Hydraulic Jump Properties over a Rough

Bed. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 110(12), pp. 1755-1771.

Khan, Aman U., Bartley, H. W. (2003). Case studies in public budgeting and

financial management. New York, N.Y: Marcel Dekker.

Munson, B. R., Young, D. F., Okiishi, T. H., Huebsch, W. W., (1990). Fundamentals

of Fluid Mechanics. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

Rajaratnam, N. (1968). Hydraulic Jumps on Rough Beds. Transaction, Engineering

Inst. of Canada, Vol. 11, No. A-2, pp. 1-8.

USBR. (1955). Research Studies on Stilling Basins. Energy Dissipators and

Associated Appurtenances, US Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic Laboratory

Report No. HYD-399.

Waller, Derek J. (2003). Operations Management: A Supply Chain Approach.

Cengage Learning Business Press.

Zhao, Q., Misra, S. K., Svendsen, I. A., Kirby, J. T. (2004). Numerical study of a

turbulent hydraulic jump. 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics, June 13-16, 2004,

University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

64
APPENDICES

65
Appendix 1: Hughes, W.C and Flack, J.E’s (1984) Data

Hydraulic jump characteristics on artificially roughened beds in a rectangular

horizontal flume with smooth side walls were measured by Hughes and Flack (1984).

The test beds they used in their experiments were 0.305 wide each. The two types of

roughness elements used were a series of parallel square bars aligned perpendicularly

to the direction of the flow and closely packed gravel particles cemented to the base.

A flume, which was made up of just a plexiglas surface, served as a control section

by providing a smooth surface. The flume discharge, q, the upstream depth, y1, the

tailwater or conjugate depth, y2, and the jump length, Lj, were measured during

experiments. Two square bars (strip roughness) test beds were constructed using 3.18

mm and 6.36 mm square Plexiglas bars, with roughness elements spacing to height

ratios of 4 and 3.75, respectively. Three gravel test beds were fabricated for d50= 4.4

mm, 6.4 mm and 11.3 mm. 200 hydraulic jumps with the upstream Froude numbers

ranging from 3.0 to 10.0 were observed throughout the testing period.

The measured experimental data is tabulated below

66
TABLE A.1 Hughes and Flack’s data for smooth bed
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)

Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1

0,34 0,082 0,256 1,30 2,53
0,33 0,069 0,292 1,50 3,23
0,33 0,061 0,315 2,00 3,89
0,33 0,057 0,331 2,20 4,30
0,33 0,054 0,338 2,50 4,71
0,33 0,041 0,377 2,80 6,95
0,35 0,073 0,285 1,40 3,12
0,36 0,060 0,328 1,80 4,27
0,35 0,054 0,354 2,10 4,93
0,35 0,048 0,374 2,40 5,82
0,34 0,043 0,381 2,70 6,80
0,38 0,068 0,325 1,60 3,78
0,38 0,059 0,354 2,00 4,73
0,38 0,054 0,374 2,40 5,37
0,37 0,047 0,407 2,80 6,47
0,41 0,074 0,335 1,70 3,64
0,41 0,065 0,361 2,00 4,40
0,41 0,061 0,394 2,10 4,81
0,40 0,052 0,423 2,60 6,02
0,41 0,060 0,387 2,30 4,91
0,41 0,064 0,371 - 4,48
0,41 0,071 0,344 1,90 3,87
0,41 0,080 0,322 1,60 3,23
0,41 0,065 0,348 2,00 4,35
0,41 0,065 0,371 2,20 4,37
0,41 0,058 0,377 2,20 5,14
0,40 0,049 0,420 2,70 6,59
0,40 0,057 0,397 2,50 5,25
0,41 0,062 0,371 2,20 4,67
0,41 0,067 0,351 1,90 4,16

67
TABLE A.2: Hughes and Flack’s data for z=0.32 cm
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1
0,43 0,08 0,34 1,60 3,44
0,42 0,06 0,39 1,90 5,34
0,43 0,06 0,39 1,90 4,86
0,42 0,05 0,42 2,10 7,06
0,42 0,05 0,41 2,20 6,03
0,42 0,05 0,43 2,40 7,49
0,42 0,05 0,43 2,40 7,42
0,41 0,05 0,44 2,50 7,38
0,42 0,05 0,43 2,40 7,06
0,42 0,05 0,42 2,20 6,55
0,42 0,05 0,43 2,40 6,06
0,42 0,05 0,41 2,10 7,49
0,43 0,06 0,39 2,00 4,86
0,42 0,06 0,39 1,80 5,21
0,42 0,05 0,40 1,90 7,09
0,45 0,08 0,38 2,00 3,80
0,45 0,06 0,43 2,50 6,17
0,45 0,06 0,43 2,40 6,18
0,45 0,05 0,44 2,80 6,65
0,45 0,06 0,43 2,50 5,16
0,45 0,06 0,42 2,40 5,03
0,45 0,07 0,41 2,10 4,72
0,45 0,07 0,40 2,00 4,54
0,45 0,05 0,44 2,70 7,33
0,45 0,06 0,44 2,70 7,08
0,45 0,07 0,41 2,20 4,62
0,45 0,05 0,43 2,50 7,16
0,44 0,07 0,38 1,70 4,42
0,44 0,05 0,47 2,50 8,04
0,43 0,07 0,37 1,70 3,88
0,43 0,06 0,40 2,00 5,42
0,43 0,05 0,41 2,30 6,32
0,43 0,05 0,41 2,40 6,74
0,43 0,05 0,43 2,50 7,36
0,43 0,05 0,41 2,30 6,17
0,43 0,06 0,40 2,30 5,17

68
TABLE A.3: Hughes and Flack’s data for d50 =0.5 cm
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1
0,49 0,11 0,32 1,40 2,40
0,49 0,10 0,32 1,50 2,61
0,52 0,10 0,35 1,60 2,96
0,51 0,09 0,35 1,90 3,40
0,51 0,09 0,37 2,00 3,56
0,48 0,10 0,32 1,60 2,73
0,48 0,11 0,31 1,40 2,34
0,48 0,10 0,30 1,50 2,55
0,43 0,09 0,31 1,60 2,71
0,44 0,10 0,29 1,50 2,55
0,45 0,09 0,32 1,60 2,77
0,46 0,09 0,35 1,90 3,20
0,46 0,09 0,32 1,60 3,04
0,46 0,11 0,29 1,40 2,34
0,38 0,06 0,35 1,90 4,68
0,35 0,06 0,32 1,80 4,30
0,41 0,05 0,41 2,40 7,26
0,41 0,06 0,36 1,90 4,44
0,41 0,06 0,37 - 4,66
0,4 0,06 0,38 2,10 5,24
0,4 0,06 0,37 2,20 5,08
0,4 0,05 0,42 2,30 7,22
0,43 0,05 0,40 2,10 5,97
0,42 0,05 0,40 2,30 5,95
0,44 0,05 0,42 2,40 6,51
0,43 0,05 0,42 2,40 6,46
0,43 0,05 0,42 2,50 6,81
0,44 0,05 0,43 2,50 6,88
0,44 0,07 0,38 2,00 4,36
0,44 0,08 0,36 1,70 3,64

69
TABLE A.4: Hughes and Flack’s data for d50=0.61 cm
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1
0,40 0,07 0,34 1,70 3,84
0,40 0,05 0,39 1,90 6,33
0,40 0,05 0,41 2,20 6,33
0,40 0,06 0,34 1,80 4,60
0,34 0,04 0,37 2,10 9,15
0,34 0,05 0,35 1,80 5,72
0,34 0,05 0,32 1,70 4,80
0,42 0,06 0,34 1,50 5,40
0,41 0,08 0,33 1,50 3,48
0,41 0,06 0,35 1,60 5,35
0,41 0,05 0,37 1,70 6,30
0,41 0,05 0,38 1,90 5,78
0,41 0,06 0,37 1,90 5,35
0,40 0,05 0,40 2,00 6,33
0,41 0,04 0,43 2,10 9,70
0,41 0,04 0,40 1,90 8,37
0,41 0,04 0,43 2,20 10,50
0,35 0,06 0,31 1,60 4,35
0,35 0,04 0,36 1,80 7,50
0,35 0,05 0,32 1,70 5,04
0,35 0,04 0,37 1,90 8,64
0,36 0,06 0,33 1,70 4,86
0,42 0,05 0,38 1,80 6,05
0,41 0,06 0,35 1,70 4,60
0,42 0,05 0,39 1,90 6,20
0,41 0,04 0,41 1,90 8,40
0,41 0,05 0,40 2,00 6,85
0,41 0,05 0,36 2,00 6,10
0,41 0,05 0,40 1,80 7,62
0,42 0,05 0,38 1,70 5,88
0,41 0,06 0,35 1,60 4,70
0,41 0,06 0,35 1,50 4,80

70
TABLE A.5: Hughes and Flack’s data for z=0.64 cm
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1
0,44 0,08 0,36 1,60 3,42
0,44 0,07 0,38 1,90 4,27
0,44 0,05 0,40 2,30 6,29
0,44 0,06 0,39 2,00 5,24
0,44 0,05 0,39 2,00 6,37
0,50 0,08 0,40 1,90 4,30
0,50 0,06 0,43 2,20 5,57
0,42 0,08 0,32 1,50 3,33
0,42 0,06 0,35 1,60 4,88
0,42 0,08 0,34 1,50 3,60
0,42 0,06 0,36 1,70 5,27
0,42 0,07 0,36 1,60 4,04
0,41 0,05 0,38 1,80 6,51
0,41 0,06 0,38 2,00 4,79
0,41 0,05 0,39 2,30 7,56
0,41 0,05 0,40 2,10 6,86
0,41 0,06 0,38 1,80 5,33
0,41 0,05 0,38 1,80 6,48
0,42 0,07 0,36 1,60 4,32
0,42 0,07 0,38 2,10 4,11
0,42 0,05 0,39 2,50 5,87
0,42 0,05 0,41 2,70 6,98
0,42 0,05 0,39 2,20 5,96
0,42 0,06 0,38 1,90 4,68
0,42 0,05 0,40 2,20 6,43
0,42 0,07 0,37 2,00 4,27

71
TABLE A.6: Hughes and Flack’s data for d50=1.04 cm
(Hughes and Flack, 1984)
Q (ft3/s) y1 (feet) y2 (feet) Lj (feet) Fr1
0,49 0,06 0,40 2,00 6,08
0,49 0,06 0,42 2,00 6,73
0,49 0,05 0,42 2,10 7,29
0,49 0,06 0,42 1,90 6,21
0,49 0,05 0,43 1,90 6,91
0,46 0,05 0,39 2,10 6,63
0,46 0,05 0,40 2,10 6,98
0,47 0,06 0,37 1,80 5,20
0,48 0,06 0,38 1,80 5,57
0,47 0,05 0,45 2,40 8,67
0,47 0,04 0,45 2,40 9,00
0,43 0,05 0,38 2,00 7,48
0,43 0,05 0,39 1,90 6,52
0,42 0,05 0,40 2,00 7,04
0,42 0,04 0,42 2,20 8,31
0,42 0,04 0,43 2,50 8,88
0,42 0,06 0,39 2,20 5,30
0,46 0,07 0,37 1,80 4,41
0,46 0,07 0,38 1,90 4,60
0,46 0,06 0,42 2,10 5,78
0,46 0,05 0,43 2,20 7,45
0,46 0,06 0,41 1,90 5,99
0,46 0,06 0,39 1,90 5,40
0,46 0,07 0,37 1,90 4,88
0,46 0,07 0,38 1,90 4,66
0,46 0,05 0,39 1,90 6,51

72
Appendix 2: Ead, S.A and Rajaratnam, N.’s (2002) Data

Ead and Rajaratnam (2002) conducted eleven experiments to study hydraulic jumps

on corrugated beds. They used a flume that was 0.446 m wide, 0.60 m deep and 7.6

m long, and had plexiglas sides. In order to ensure that the crests of the corrugations

were at the same level as the upstream bed on which the supercritical flow takes

place, two corrugated aluminum sheets were installed on the bed of the flume in a

certain way. These sheets had sinusoidal corrugations of the wavelength, s, of 68 mm

perpendicular to the flow direction, and amplitudes, ks, of 13 and 22 mm. In seven of

the experiments, the initial depth, y1, measured above the crest level of the

corrugations on the plane bed, was equal to 25.4 mm while it was 50.8 mm in four.

All the experiments were conducted for a range of upstream Froude number from 4.0

to 10.0.

The measured experimental data is tabulated below

TABLE A.7: Ead and Rajaratnam’s data for ks=1.3 and 2.2 cm
(Ead and Rajaratnam, 2002)
Ks(cm) s (mm) q (m3/s/m) y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,3 68,00 0,05 2,54 10,40 41,00 4,00
1,3 68,00 0,06 2,54 12,80 48,00 5,00
1,3 68,00 0,08 2,54 14,50 54,00 6,00
1,3 68,00 0,09 2,54 18,80 75,00 7,00
1,3 68,00 0,10 2,54 20,00 85,00 8,00
1,3 68,00 0,11 2,54 23,30 102,00 9,00
1,3 68,00 0,13 2,54 26,30 109,00 10,00
1,3 68,00 0,14 5,08 21,00 88,00 4,00
1,3 68,00 0,21 5,08 31,00 129,00 5,80
2,2 68,00 0,14 5,08 21,00 82,00 4,00
2,2 68,00 0,21 5,08 31,00 129,00 5,80

73
Appendix 3: Evcimen, T.U.’s (2005) Data

Evcimen (2005) observed the effects of rectangular prismatic roughness elements on

hydraulic jump characteristics. A horizontal, rectangular open channel, which was

25.3 cm wide, 43.2 cm deep and 1000 cm long, was used in the studies. The entry

and outlet of the channel was made of concrete, whereas the middle section was

fiberglass, and 364 cm long. The roughness elements were located in the fiberglass

part of the channel. An adjustable weir placed at the end of channel controlled the

tailwater depth. The roughness elements were constructed using fiberglass. The

heights of roughness elements were 0.6 cm, 1 cm and 2 cm. All the roughness

elements had a width of 25 cm and a length of 1 cm. The longitudinal distance

between two roughness elements were taken as 4 cm and 9 cm, respectively (Figure

A.1). The incoming Froude number was between 6.8 and 16.6. A total of 81

measurements were made.

Figure A.1 Rectangular prismatic bars used in the experiments (Evcimen, 2005)

74
TABLE A.8: Evcimen’s data for smooth bed (Evcimen, 2005)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,30 21,22 15,12 134,00 12,87
1,28 23,38 15,12 148,00 13,18
1,30 22,98 16,13 141,00 13,73
1,30 24,43 16,13 146,00 13,73
1,29 25,95 16,94 164,00 14,59
1,32 23,18 16,94 164,00 14,10
1,32 24,32 18,25 161,00 15,19
1,29 28,21 18,25 169,00 15,72
1,29 20,67 13,50 131,00 11,63
1,30 18,12 13,50 123,00 11,49
1,68 14,58 11,97 96,00 6,94
1,70 13,56 11,97 89,00 6,82
1,70 15,22 13,35 112,00 7,60
1,68 16,23 13,35 110,00 7,74
1,69 17,21 14,40 112,00 8,27
1,70 15,65 14,40 117,00 8,20
1,72 18,43 16,14 126,00 9,03
1,67 22,48 16,14 128,00 9,44
1,70 22,54 16,74 144,00 9,53
1,71 21,45 16,74 145,00 9,45

75
TABLE A.9: Evcimen’s data for z=1 cm, w=4 cm (Evcimen, 2005)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,11 14,75 10,52 69,00 11,35
1,07 15,20 10,42 61,00 11,89
1,08 17,08 11,70 69,00 13,16
1,08 16,60 11,70 78,00 13,16
1,33 17,79 13,60 75,00 11,19
1,35 19,00 15,00 76,00 12,07
1,38 20,06 16,24 79,00 12,64
1,37 14,87 12,35 61,00 9,72
1,34 14,02 10,52 54,00 8,56
1,37 17,43 13,78 74,00 10,84

TABLE A.10: Evcimen’s data for z=1 cm, w=9 cm (Evcimen, 2005)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,36 12,74 13,78 38,00 8,49
1,46 13,08 10,68 53,00 8,88
1,54 15,56 12,41 42,00 9,25
1,44 14,98 14,01 58,00 10,23
1,35 13,76 14,01 58,00 10,03
1,28 13,39 12,46 66,00 9,47
1,02 14,44 10,86 77,00 13,39
1,21 14,73 10,93 51,00 11,54
1,23 16,14 13,36 59,00 12,36
1,28 15,76 13,36 41,00 11,64
1,21 15,43 12,03 80,00 11,41
1,18 14,32 10,61 46,00 10,45
1,66 16,86 15,03 58,00 8,87
1,75 18,32 16,41 59,00 8,95
1,82 18,25 17,77 48,00 9,13
1,93 17,75 17,77 56,00 8,36
1,78 16,05 16,46 48,00 8,74
1,73 17,24 15,20 61,00 8,43
1,65 20,47 17,92 81,00 10,67
1,81 20,08 19,31 67,00 10,01

76
TABLE A.11: Evcimen’s data for z=2 cm, w=4 cm (Evcimen, 2005)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,36 14,22 12,78 68,00 10,17
1,34 15,84 12,78 67,00 10,39
1,29 16,74 12,78 66,00 11,01
1,29 16,42 14,21 64,00 12,24
1,32 17,54 14,21 68,00 11,82
1,34 17,88 14,21 61,00 11,56
1,36 19,54 15,57 67,00 12,39
1,34 17,34 15,57 72,00 12,67
1,30 21,34 15,57 98,00 13,26
1,07 15,42 12,15 73,00 13,85
1,05 16,75 12,15 81,00 14,25
1,04 17,11 12,15 86,00 14,46
1,06 18,12 13,52 80,00 15,64
1,08 17,45 13,52 70,00 15,21
1,10 18,65 13,52 77,00 14,79
1,11 20,04 14,80 85,00 15,97
1,09 20,52 14,80 88,00 16,41
1,08 18,98 14,80 91,00 16,64
1,75 16,21 14,81 65,00 8,07
1,74 17,32 14,77 74,00 8,12
1,67 16,46 14,77 79,00 8,64
1,68 15,44 16,31 87,00 9,45
1,75 16,14 16,31 77,00 8,89
1,75 18,50 16,31 72,00 8,89
1,78 16,25 17,46 72,00 9,28
1,74 20,25 17,46 81,00 9,60
1,74 16,84 17,46 91,00 9,60

TABLE A.12: Evcimen’s data for z=0.6 cm, w=4 cm (Evcimen, 2005)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,30 17,48 14,04 70,00 11,95
1,29 17,24 14,04 84,00 12,09
1,29 21,13 16,48 97,00 14,20
1,30 23,46 18,69 102,00 15,91
1,34 22,37 18,69 85,00 15,21
1,35 22,38 18,69 96,00 15,04
1,29 21,54 17,93 97,00 15,45
1,76 20,54 19,03 96,00 10,29
1,71 20,67 19,03 78,00 10,74
1,75 20,41 19,03 85,00 10,37
1,71 18,38 16,76 89,00 9,46
1,68 18,96 16,76 85,00 9,71
1,73 16,99 16,76 74,00 9,29
1,72 18,22 15,75 69,00 8,81
1,71 17,23 14,63 76,00 8,25
2,04 17,79 16,84 66,00 7,29

77
 TABLE A.12 (Continued)
y1 (cm) y2 (cm) Q (lt/s) Lj (cm) Fr1
1,99 17,69 16,84 72,00 7,57
1,95 17,22 16,84 80,00 7,81
1,98 19,45 19,30 88,00 8,74
1,96 19,78 19,30 93,00 8,87
1,97 18,22 19,30 96,00 8,81
1,98 17,45 17,89 79,00 8,10
1,95 16,98 17,89 83,00 8,29
1,94 18,28 17,89 87,00 8,35

Appendix 4: Carollo, F.G, Ferro, V. and Pampalone, V.’s (2007)

Data

Carollo, Ferro, and Pampalone (2007) carried out an experimental study on

horizontal rectangular rough beds. The experiments were conducted in a 14.4 m long,

0.6 m wide and 0.6 m deep rectangular flume made of glass. The measuring reach

was 3 m long. Closely packed crushed gravel particles were cemented to the bottom

of the flume. The median diameter, d50, was used as roughness heights, ks, which

were taken as 0.46 cm, 0.82 cm, 1.46 cm, 2.39 cm and 3.20 cm for each experiment,

respectively. 408 test runs were conducted using discharges ranging from 17.4 to

73.1 lt/s, and incoming Froude numbers ranging from 1.9 to 9.9.

The measured experimental data is tabulated below:

78
 TABLE A.13: Carollo, Ferro and Pampalone’s data for smooth bed
(Carollo, Ferro and Pampalone, 2007)
d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1 d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1
(cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm)
- 6,99 16,15 64,94 34,00 1,87 - 3,59 12,35 35,41 38,00 2,77
- 6,84 16,72 64,55 32,00 1,92 - 3,32 12,06 33,54 47,00 2,95
- 6,94 16,52 65,28 - 1,90 - 3,25 11,98 32,70 32,00 2,97
- 6,51 16,00 59,93 36,00 1,92 - 3,12 11,71 31,48 35,00 3,04
- 6,49 16,13 59,66 32,00 1,92 - 2,94 11,42 30,03 43,00 3,17
- 5,40 12,57 46,93 35,00 1,99 - 2,83 11,23 28,45 30,00 3,18
- 7,09 16,71 70,60 25,00 1,99 - 2,78 11,05 27,79 41,00 3,19
- 5,68 14,58 51,13 34,00 2,01 - 2,84 11,23 28,87 34,00 3,21
- 6,14 15,98 57,76 41,00 2,02 - 2,52 10,72 25,79 34,00 3,43
- 6,35 15,79 61,04 30,00 2,03 - 2,44 10,48 24,57 31,00 3,43
- 5,74 15,33 53,24 40,00 2,06 - 4,11 18,38 53,87 51,00 3,44
- 5,38 14,69 49,01 43,00 2,09 - 2,27 10,39 23,40 40,00 3,64
- 5,22 12,06 47,07 27,00 2,10 - 3,20 16,31 39,91 50,00 3,71
- 5,52 14,92 51,18 37,00 2,10 - 3,49 17,59 47,29 51,00 3,86
- 5,11 12,49 46,02 33,00 2,12 - 2,03 9,95 21,52 31,00 3,96
- 6,17 16,29 61,63 35,00 2,14 - 4,13 21,93 64,51 72,00 4,09
- 5,59 15,42 53,65 34,00 2,16 - 1,87 10,13 19,80 39,00 4,12
- 5,82 15,24 57,52 33,00 2,18 - 3,83 21,63 61,41 85,00 4,36
- 4,84 14,00 44,02 41,00 2,20 - 3,53 21,17 57,96 70,00 4,65
- 4,96 13,77 45,67 36,50 2,20 - 3,08 18,87 47,64 57,00 4,69
- 6,44 16,86 67,57 34,00 2,20 - 2,92 18,67 45,20 60,00 4,82
- 5,92 16,24 59,82 37,00 2,21 - 3,32 20,75 54,91 60,00 4,83
- 6,40 17,17 67,55 35,00 2,22 - 2,28 15,66 33,19 56,00 5,13
- 6,17 16,47 65,38 31,00 2,27 - 3,42 23,45 61,69 82,00 5,19
- 5,46 15,05 54,43 35,00 2,27 - 2,63 17,97 41,76 56,00 5,21
- 5,07 14,70 49,56 36,00 2,31 - 3,18 22,94 57,76 90,00 5,42
- 5,30 14,85 53,88 38,00 2,35 - 2,30 16,98 36,45 70,00 5,56
- 4,21 13,18 39,45 38,00 2,43 - 2,91 22,65 54,57 86,00 5,85
- 5,20 15,38 54,37 42,00 2,44 - 2,13 16,77 34,70 58,00 5,94
- 4,14 12,75 39,26 31,00 2,48 - 2,65 22,06 50,99 80,00 6,29
- 4,67 14,08 47,03 35,00 2,48 - 2,38 21,78 47,47 77,00 6,88
- 3,98 12,65 37,15 46,00 2,49 - 2,20 20,78 43,48 80,00 7,09
- 4,50 14,22 45,39 44,00 2,53 - 2,01 19,62 39,09 82,00 7,30
- 4,37 12,85 43,43 32,00 2,53 - 2,20 21,93 45,50 70,00 7,42
- 4,07 13,59 40,74 39,00 2,64 - 1,91 19,57 38,05 78,00 7,67
- 3,67 12,53 36,33 35,00 2,75

79
 TABLE A.14: Carollo, Ferro and Pampalone’s data for gravel beds
(Carollo, Ferro and Pampalone, 2007)
d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1 d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1
(cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm)
0,46 5,65 16,04 57,80 - 2,29 1,46 3,68 19,15 58,77 62,00 4,43
0,46 5,49 16,06 58,26 - 2,41 1,46 3,76 20,42 60,97 67,00 4,45
0,46 5,07 16,08 57,71 - 2,69 1,46 3,47 18,56 54,06 62,00 4,45
0,46 4,69 17,70 57,83 66,00 3,03 1,46 3,31 18,10 53,76 61,00 4,75
0,46 4,75 18,26 60,50 62,00 3,11 1,46 2,66 14,95 38,89 49,00 4,77
0,46 4,57 17,88 57,65 61,00 3,14 1,46 3,07 16,25 49,03 57,00 4,85
0,46 4,66 18,55 60,49 64,00 3,20 1,46 3,47 20,25 60,74 60,00 5,00
0,46 4,25 19,63 60,26 65,00 3,66 1,46 3,00 17,02 49,31 61,00 5,05
0,46 4,19 19,38 60,12 68,00 3,73 1,46 3,38 20,06 60,61 - 5,19
0,46 4,15 19,24 60,21 69,00 3,79 1,46 2,89 16,95 48,84 - 5,29
0,46 3,93 18,41 55,64 62,00 3,80 1,46 2,68 18,08 46,75 58,00 5,67
0,46 3,86 18,98 55,01 67,00 3,86 1,46 2,93 19,23 54,10 64,00 5,74
0,46 4,06 19,71 60,26 65,00 3,92 1,46 2,63 16,84 46,41 56,00 5,79
0,46 3,73 18,51 54,69 - 4,04 1,46 2,71 17,56 49,21 53,00 5,87
0,46 3,60 18,95 55,58 70,00 4,33 1,46 2,60 16,68 46,25 53,00 5,87
0,46 3,39 18,12 51,61 66,00 4,40 1,46 3,06 20,73 60,26 63,00 5,99
0,46 3,31 18,18 50,70 50,00 4,48 1,46 2,83 19,04 54,13 - 6,05
0,46 3,29 18,47 51,03 54,00 4,55 1,46 2,63 17,58 48,81 60,00 6,09
0,46 3,57 19,84 59,45 55,00 4,69 1,46 2,54 16,59 46,79 59,00 6,15
0,46 3,53 20,70 59,70 74,00 4,79 1,46 2,29 15,38 40,57 48,00 6,23
0,46 3,49 20,29 59,30 52,00 4,84 1,46 2,54 17,53 48,31 60,00 6,35
0,46 3,12 17,90 50,33 66,00 4,86 1,46 2,52 17,14 48,64 54,00 6,47
0,46 3,44 19,90 58,75 53,00 4,90 1,46 2,32 16,71 43,10 54,00 6,49
0,46 3,08 18,06 49,88 65,00 4,91 1,46 2,69 19,46 54,22 67,00 6,54
0,46 3,26 19,73 54,75 63,00 4,95 1,46 2,63 18,27 53,22 57,00 6,64
0,46 3,26 19,47 54,86 68,00 4,96 1,46 2,16 14,98 40,57 47,00 6,80
0,46 3,41 20,89 59,29 76,00 5,01 1,46 2,43 17,88 48,83 57,00 6,86
0,46 3,01 18,10 50,34 50,00 5,13 1,46 2,56 19,35 53,65 63,00 6,97
0,46 3,35 20,70 59,34 73,00 5,15 1,46 2,13 16,95 42,94 60,00 7,35
0,46 3,00 17,97 50,29 67,00 5,15 1,46 2,11 16,42 43,08 52,00 7,48
0,46 3,32 20,18 58,66 71,00 5,16 1,46 2,05 16,02 42,69 50,00 7,74
0,46 3,13 18,94 54,01 61,00 5,19 1,46 1,98 15,76 41,36 54,00 7,90
0,46 2,99 18,18 50,62 50,00 5,21 1,46 1,84 15,61 40,15 55,00 8,56
0,46 3,09 18,94 53,39 62,00 5,23 1,46 1,77 15,22 38,68 58,00 8,74
0,46 2,67 17,45 43,29 62,00 5,28 2,39 4,97 12,10 54,35 - 2,61
0,46 2,95 18,29 50,37 55,00 5,29 2,39 4,55 12,14 54,35 - 2,98
0,46 2,65 16,77 42,89 64,00 5,29 2,39 2,08 12,94 39,07 45,00 6,93
0,46 2,82 17,98 47,08 58,00 5,29 2,39 2,04 13,04 38,22 48,00 6,98
0,46 3,23 20,83 58,91 71,00 5,40 2,39 1,98 13,34 37,12 - 7,09
0,46 3,02 19,97 53,46 71,00 5,42 2,39 2,48 16,72 52,26 61,00 7,12
0,46 3,02 19,54 53,95 70,00 5,47 2,39 5,39 12,11 54,32 - 2,31
0,46 2,88 18,46 50,33 56,00 5,48 2,39 4,38 12,24 54,09 - 3,14
0,46 2,74 17,69 47,48 68,00 5,57 2,39 4,28 13,42 53,91 - 3,24
0,46 2,82 18,20 49,66 69,00 5,58 2,39 4,56 14,54 60,20 - 3,29
0,46 2,96 19,55 53,78 60,00 5,62 2,39 4,49 15,14 61,15 - 3,42
0,46 2,69 17,84 46,93 60,00 5,66 2,39 4,10 13,31 53,98 - 3,46
0,46 2,68 17,19 46,75 58,00 5,67 2,39 4,47 15,51 61,63 - 3,47

80
 TABLE A.14 (Continued)
d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1 d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1
(cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm)
0,46 2,53 16,75 42,88 58,00 5,67 2,39 3,87 15,33 53,65 - 3,75
0,46 2,27 15,57 36,51 61,00 5,68 2,39 4,16 16,00 60,27 - 3,78
0,46 2,66 18,48 47,12 70,00 5,78 2,39 4,11 15,87 61,07 - 3,90
0,46 2,48 17,11 42,94 59,00 5,85 2,39 4,07 16,43 61,26 70,00 3,97
0,46 2,42 16,73 42,52 64,00 6,01 2,39 3,72 13,49 53,93 - 4,00
0,46 2,42 16,37 42,73 66,00 6,04 2,39 3,72 16,46 55,96 63,00 4,15
0,46 2,65 18,47 49,53 67,00 6,11 2,39 3,33 16,21 52,30 60,00 4,58
0,46 2,54 17,76 47,09 70,00 6,19 2,39 2,75 12,20 39,34 49,00 4,59
0,46 2,32 16,87 41,37 65,00 6,23 2,39 3,55 18,05 59,96 67,00 4,77
0,46 2,51 18,25 46,56 64,00 6,23 2,39 2,95 14,04 46,37 56,00 4,87
0,46 2,74 19,31 53,19 69,00 6,24 2,39 3,28 17,20 55,59 63,00 4,98
0,46 2,57 19,02 49,86 60,00 6,44 2,39 3,48 17,77 60,88 72,00 4,99
0,46 2,15 16,36 38,69 62,00 6,53 2,39 2,66 13,30 40,76 47,00 5,00
0,46 2,24 16,47 41,14 65,00 6,53 2,39 3,40 17,66 60,68 70,00 5,15
0,46 2,26 16,56 42,14 67,00 6,60 2,39 2,39 12,19 36,04 41,00 5,19
0,46 2,05 15,00 36,46 58,00 6,61 2,39 2,80 14,60 46,05 55,00 5,23
0,46 2,38 17,86 46,58 67,00 6,75 2,39 3,18 16,94 55,95 65,00 5,25
0,46 2,07 16,27 39,12 63,00 6,99 2,39 2,45 12,98 39,06 48,00 5,42
0,46 2,10 16,29 40,15 63,00 7,02 2,39 3,12 17,77 56,24 66,00 5,43
0,46 1,75 14,04 31,58 58,00 7,26 2,39 3,24 17,98 59,73 69,00 5,45
0,46 2,13 17,46 42,94 64,00 7,35 2,39 2,97 16,55 52,71 51,00 5,48
0,46 1,44 11,82 24,71 48,00 7,61 2,39 2,52 14,32 41,35 50,00 5,50
0,46 1,84 15,22 36,02 61,00 7,68 2,39 2,91 16,82 51,49 62,00 5,52
0,46 1,61 13,59 29,60 56,00 7,71 2,39 2,71 15,33 46,45 56,00 5,54
0,46 1,69 13,58 31,87 54,00 7,72 2,39 2,50 14,06 41,38 49,00 5,57
0,46 1,21 11,39 21,76 50,00 8,70 2,39 2,30 13,13 36,91 45,00 5,63
0,46 1,11 10,80 19,16 44,00 8,72 2,39 2,30 12,37 36,91 44,00 5,63
0,82 3,47 16,86 43,12 53,00 3,55 2,39 2,26 12,66 36,27 44,00 5,68
0,82 3,56 16,59 44,94 55,00 3,56 2,39 2,65 15,51 46,05 57,00 5,68
0,82 6,75 19,06 73,16 67,00 2,22 2,39 2,43 13,98 40,72 47,00 5,72
0,82 6,53 19,15 70,56 70,00 2,25 2,39 2,35 12,11 39,06 44,00 5,77
0,82 6,25 19,34 70,47 69,00 2,40 2,39 2,34 13,38 39,08 48,00 5,81
0,82 6,00 20,06 70,71 69,00 2,56 2,39 2,42 13,33 41,17 49,00 5,82
0,82 5,87 19,55 70,29 73,00 2,63 2,39 2,58 14,00 45,33 57,00 5,82
0,82 5,41 18,90 63,37 66,00 2,68 2,39 2,93 17,51 56,17 67,00 5,96
0,82 5,28 16,06 63,84 70,00 2,80 2,39 2,87 17,78 55,92 63,00 6,12
0,82 5,14 18,82 63,29 70,00 2,89 2,39 2,30 13,12 40,77 44,00 6,22
0,82 5,10 18,98 63,42 70,00 2,93 2,39 2,13 12,53 36,92 42,00 6,32
0,82 4,98 19,63 63,28 74,00 3,03 2,39 2,45 14,91 46,05 57,00 6,39
0,82 4,71 18,80 58,40 71,00 3,04 2,39 2,92 18,26 60,20 68,00 6,42
0,82 4,69 18,72 60,13 70,00 3,15 2,39 2,65 16,33 52,53 53,00 6,48
0,82 4,45 18,80 58,04 67,00 3,29 2,39 2,15 12,85 38,69 44,00 6,53
0,82 4,69 20,23 63,37 76,00 3,32 2,39 2,59 16,38 51,15 58,00 6,53
0,82 4,41 18,93 58,13 66,00 3,34 2,39 2,35 15,36 45,70 53,00 6,75
0,82 4,35 19,51 57,29 66,00 3,36 2,39 2,02 12,15 36,47 43,00 6,76
0,82 4,38 19,60 58,05 64,00 3,37 2,39 2,30 15,49 45,16 53,00 6,89
0,82 4,38 18,97 58,57 76,00 3,40 2,39 2,14 14,03 40,53 48,00 6,89
0,82 4,23 19,58 57,88 65,00 3,54 2,39 1,98 13,46 38,69 49,00 7,39
0,82 3,26 16,74 44,25 54,00 4,00 2,39 2,17 15,42 45,17 52,00 7,52

81
 TABLE A.14 (Continued)
d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1 d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1
(cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm)
0,82 3,22 16,82 44,19 55,00 4,07 2,39 1,88 13,85 36,72 - 7,58
0,82 3,83 20,22 57,75 75,00 4,10 2,39 2,34 16,42 52,27 62,00 7,77
0,82 2,69 13,87 35,40 41,00 4,27 2,39 2,11 15,03 45,16 50,00 7,84
0,82 3,65 19,51 57,53 66,00 4,39 2,39 1,80 13,75 38,26 48,00 8,43
0,82 3,79 21,14 61,70 60,00 4,45 2,39 1,75 14,05 38,02 - 8,74
0,82 3,07 17,60 45,39 57,00 4,49 3,2 3,93 16,09 56,37 53,00 3,85
0,82 3,58 19,09 57,41 63,00 4,51 3,2 3,98 16,05 58,04 58,00 3,89
0,82 2,95 16,43 42,94 53,00 4,51 3,2 4,06 16,10 60,42 63,00 3,93
0,82 3,74 21,09 61,98 73,00 4,56 3,2 3,98 16,80 59,39 58,00 3,98
0,82 3,00 17,23 45,31 58,00 4,64 3,2 2,13 13,50 39,08 47,00 6,69
0,82 3,38 19,47 54,77 65,00 4,69 3,2 2,27 14,91 43,32 50,00 6,74
0,82 2,58 15,57 36,68 42,00 4,71 3,2 2,34 16,02 46,75 55,00 6,95
0,82 2,85 16,20 42,95 53,00 4,75 3,2 2,75 18,58 59,90 61,00 6,99
0,82 2,48 14,06 34,94 47,00 4,76 3,2 6,27 12,76 61,96 - 2,10
0,82 2,83 16,98 45,00 60,00 5,03 3,2 6,24 13,33 61,81 - 2,11
0,82 2,81 17,22 44,79 58,00 5,06 3,2 5,78 13,66 61,63 - 2,36
0,82 3,13 19,28 54,01 60,00 5,19 3,2 5,73 13,83 61,60 - 2,39
0,82 2,65 16,16 42,56 47,00 5,25 3,2 5,44 13,26 59,13 - 2,48
0,82 1,93 12,51 26,76 43,00 5,31 3,2 5,41 13,46 58,88 - 2,49
0,82 2,11 14,45 30,76 56,00 5,34 3,2 5,38 13,43 59,10 - 2,52
0,82 1,50 10,50 18,54 30,00 5,37 3,2 5,51 13,91 61,25 - 2,52
0,82 2,33 15,63 36,49 51,00 5,46 3,2 5,34 14,42 61,22 - 2,64
0,82 2,27 15,22 35,54 48,00 5,53 3,2 5,06 14,19 58,82 - 2,75
0,82 2,19 14,79 33,86 50,00 5,56 3,2 4,89 14,54 58,73 52,00 2,89
0,82 1,88 13,30 28,05 52,00 5,79 3,2 4,88 14,85 58,55 53,00 2,89
0,82 1,74 12,45 25,28 45,00 5,86 3,2 4,41 15,63 58,48 55,00 3,36
0,82 1,35 9,21 17,36 29,00 5,89 3,2 4,26 15,68 58,00 53,00 3,51
0,82 2,16 14,89 35,38 58,00 5,93 3,2 3,89 16,21 57,96 57,00 4,02
0,82 1,58 11,05 22,28 40,00 5,97 3,2 3,91 16,92 59,14 58,00 4,07
0,82 1,34 9,18 17,55 24,00 6,02 3,2 3,89 16,30 60,12 63,00 4,17
0,82 1,69 11,82 24,98 42,00 6,05 3,2 3,73 16,43 59,84 60,00 4,42
0,82 1,56 11,01 22,45 37,00 6,13 3,2 3,60 17,11 59,95 61,00 4,67
0,82 1,68 12,65 26,64 53,00 6,51 3,2 3,29 16,19 53,61 58,00 4,78
0,82 1,27 9,08 17,51 25,00 6,51 3,2 3,23 16,35 56,95 58,00 5,22
0,82 1,25 8,98 17,44 18,00 6,64 3,2 3,32 17,03 60,59 61,00 5,33
0,82 1,57 12,25 25,55 45,00 6,91 3,2 3,16 17,04 56,90 63,00 5,39
0,82 1,59 13,25 26,45 45,00 7,02 3,2 3,28 17,60 60,39 62,00 5,41
0,82 1,50 11,88 24,89 43,00 7,21 3,2 2,98 15,97 53,46 60,00 5,53
0,82 1,50 12,11 25,27 43,00 7,32 3,2 2,86 16,69 50,63 57,00 5,57
0,82 1,45 11,42 24,81 40,00 7,56 3,2 2,76 15,97 49,98 58,00 5,80
0,82 1,42 12,10 25,31 42,00 7,96 3,2 3,03 18,09 58,08 58,00 5,86
0,82 1,36 11,75 24,89 38,00 8,35 3,2 3,05 17,52 60,16 63,00 6,01
1,46 4,76 18,17 61,87 66,00 3,17 3,2 2,81 16,36 53,38 58,00 6,03
1,46 4,69 18,58 61,84 65,00 3,24 3,2 2,72 17,30 53,03 59,00 6,29
1,46 5,68 13,17 56,22 - 2,21 3,2 2,70 16,85 53,03 60,00 6,36
1,46 5,49 13,69 55,60 - 2,30 3,2 2,92 18,19 59,92 62,00 6,39
1,46 5,44 13,14 55,80 - 2,34 3,2 2,83 18,60 57,89 59,00 6,47
1,46 5,22 13,78 56,26 - 2,51 3,2 2,53 15,19 49,99 58,00 6,61
1,46 5,19 15,42 55,99 65,00 2,52 3,2 2,73 17,50 56,37 63,00 6,65

82
 TABLE A.14 (Continued)
d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1 d50 y1 y2 Q Lr Fr1
(cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (lt/s) (cm)
1,46 5,00 14,73 54,63 - 2,60 3,2 2,40 15,77 49,68 55,00 7,11
1,46 5,27 17,57 62,75 67,00 2,76 3,2 2,25 15,27 46,62 54,00 7,35
1,46 5,22 17,00 62,08 66,00 2,77 3,2 2,52 17,29 56,46 59,00 7,51
1,46 4,75 14,56 54,47 - 2,80 3,2 1,93 14,51 37,94 53,00 7,53
1,46 5,06 18,07 62,67 70,00 2,93 3,2 1,87 13,75 37,15 52,00 7,73
1,46 4,71 18,42 62,62 70,00 3,26 3,2 2,19 16,09 47,14 55,00 7,74
1,46 4,62 18,56 61,58 66,00 3,30 3,2 2,54 18,46 59,19 - 7,78
1,46 4,51 18,71 61,92 66,00 3,44 3,2 2,54 17,88 59,34 60,00 7,80
1,46 4,43 18,95 61,15 68,00 3,49 3,2 1,91 13,19 38,89 46,00 7,84
1,46 4,43 18,76 61,50 68,00 3,51 3,2 2,31 16,47 52,72 59,00 7,99
1,46 3,98 17,91 54,16 64,00 3,63 3,2 2,07 15,94 45,45 57,00 8,12
1,46 4,16 18,79 61,71 67,00 3,87 3,2 1,94 14,59 43,11 50,00 8,49
1,46 3,98 18,62 59,24 72,00 3,97 3,2 1,73 13,55 36,82 52,00 8,61
1,46 3,70 17,56 53,90 62,00 4,03 3,2 2,00 16,22 46,03 58,00 8,66
1,46 3,90 18,63 58,76 68,00 4,06 3,2 1,71 13,05 36,60 54,00 8,71
1,46 3,45 16,96 49,37 63,00 4,10 3,2 1,96 15,12 46,62 55,00 9,04
1,46 3,69 18,50 54,75 65,00 4,11 3,2 2,02 16,28 49,53 57,00 9,18
1,46 3,97 19,42 61,24 63,00 4,12 3,2 1,80 15,65 42,52 54,00 9,37
1,46 3,63 18,26 54,07 68,00 4,16 3,2 1,80 13,90 42,71 50,00 9,41
1,46 3,63 17,45 54,07 61,00 4,16 3,2 1,58 12,71 36,24 44,00 9,71
1,46 3,82 18,87 58,51 60,00 4,17 3,2 1,63 13,17 38,44 48,00 9,83
1,46 3,39 16,32 49,03 58,00 4,18 3,2 1,63 12,83 38,68 48,00 9,89
1,46 3,73 18,71 59,30 66,00 4,38

83