International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
A Modified Stilling Basin with Flow-Guide Pipes to Improve Hydraulic
Jump Parameters
Nassar M A
Assoc. Prof., Department of Construction Engineering, College of Engineering in Al-Qunfudhah, Umm Al-Qura
University, KSA, on leave from Water Engineering and Water Structures Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Zagazig University, Egypt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - the paper presents a novel technique to increase
the efficiency of the stilling basin downstream the vertical
gates. The paper proposed guide pipes of the flow to the side
boundaries. The paper investigated the existence of one, two
and three rows of two-column pipes on characteristics of the
hydraulic jump. The results showed that the presence of
three rows of flow-guide pipes with a length between their
nozzles (LOpen/d1 = 4.3) has definitely enhanced the
characteristics of the hydraulic jump. The proposed basin
reduced the length of the hydraulic jump by 31% and
increased the energy Loss by 4% compared to the case of no
flow-guide pipes.
Key Words: (stilling basin, flow, guide pipes, hydraulic,
and jump)
1. INTRODUCTION
The hydraulic jump was considered as an effective tool
to control the flow downstream the hydraulic structures.
Many papers investigated the hydraulic jump [2, 9, 10, 12,
13, and 15]. Babaali, et al. (2015) applied FLOW-3D model
to simulate the jump characteristics formed in the stilling
basin in the Nazloo Dam in Iran. Wang, & Chanson, (2015)
found that there is a big mutual effect between the
variations of the free surface and the roller turbulence.
Gavhane, et al. (2018) investigated the design of the
jump in a stilling basin of the Gunjawani Dam. Deshmukh
(2018) investigated the jump in a roughened bed with
stones. It was indicated that, the height of the stones
affected the energy loss. Mohamed (2010). Investigated
the symmetric and asymmetric jumps in rectangle stilling
basins.
Impact Factor value: 7.34
The recent paper presents a technique including guide
pipes of the flow to the side walls to increase the efficiency
of the stilling basin downstream the vertical gates. The
paper investigated the existence of one, two and three
rows of the pipes on the characteristics of the hydraulic
jump. In addition, the length between nozzles of the flowguide pipes was investigated.
2. THEORETICAL APPROACH
The technique of dimension analysis was applied to
detect the main parameters affecting the free jump
features downstream of the sluice gate at the presence of
the proposed flow-guide pipes. The main equation
describes the phenomenon was presented as shown in
equation (1).
(1)
Where: and are water depths at the beginning and
end of the jump, respectively;
is the jump length;
and
are the lost energy through the jump and the
total energy at the begging of the jump, respectively;
is
the Froude number at the begging of the jump;
is the
summation areas of flow guide pipes in one column; and
is the length between nozzles of the flow-guide
pipes.
3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Nassar (2014) proposed a perforated vertical sluice
gate as a tool to modify the features of the jump. An
obvious improvement of the features of the jump was
presented. Abdel-Aal, et al. (2016) investigated the use of
|
The direct effect of the hydraulic jump is presented on
the movable bed downstream the hydraulic structure. The
scour depth and the length can be considered as a direct
indicator to the efficiency of the jump. Many papers were
presented to investigate the flow and scour characteristics
downstream the hydraulic jump. Elfiky, et al. (2005)
investigated the effect of multi-vents regulator on local
scour. Abdel-Aal et al. (2004) investigated effect of
operating regulators' vents on scour.
)
Habib & Nassar (2013) investigated the jump in a
roughened bed with curved elements. It was indicated
that, the apron of ninety percent of staggered proposed
curved elements increased the lost energy by 17%. Habib
& Nassar (2014) proposed a modified lateral sill as a tool
to dissipate the energy. It was indicated that, the
application of the modified lateral moving sill positively
improved the features of the hydraulic jump.
© 2019, IRJET
two sluice gated worked together in the same vertical
plane. It was presented as a tool to improve the
characteristics of the jump. The proposed tool was an
effective to decrease the length of the apron by 4.3%
The experiments were conducted in the laboratory of
the fluid mechanics in the college of engineering, Umm
Alqua university Branch in Alqonfudhah. The device on
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1033
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
which the tests were conducted is an open channel of the
following dimensions. The length is 110cm, the height is
15cm and the width is 7.7cm. The model is sketched as
shown in figure (1). Figure (2) shows the hydraulic jump
at the existence of the flow-guide pipes. A vertical sluice
gate is located at the beginning of the flume. A movable
gate is located at the downstream side of the flume to
control the tail depth. The following discharge was
measured using a digital flowmeter. The flowmeter existed
in the inlet pipe. The depth and length of the flow were
measured using fixed rulers that existed on the flume
sidewall.
The flow measuring procedure consists of the following
steps: 1- switch on the pump; 2- move the upstream sluice
gate up to the desired opening height; 3- the downstream
side movable gate is adjusted to generate the hydraulic
jump at the specified location; and 4- the flow is left for 10
minutes to reach the Steady-state.
The measurements include the followings: 1- the water
depth at the beginning of the jump ( ); 2- the water depth
at the end of the jump( ); 3- the jump length (
); 4the flow discharge (Q); and 5-the water depth upstream
the sluice gate (
). The different experimental models
are presented as shown in figure (2A). The experimental
works include two-stages. The first stage investigated the
existence of one, two and three rows of the pipes on the
characteristics of the hydraulic jump. The second stage
investigated the length between nozzles of the flow-guide
pipes. Table (1) shows the experimental model stages.
Fig -2: A photo of the experimental model [A] the used
flow-guide pipes models
Table -1: The experimental model stages
Stage
The description
Tested parameters
Photos
In the first stage the effect
2
of existence of one, two A. AHOLE /d1 =1.34 (1-row)
I
and three rows of the the
flow-guide
pipes
B. AHOLE /d12=2.68 (2-rows)
was
investigated
C. AHOLE /d12=4.03 (3-rows)
A. LOpen /d1=1.7
In the second stage , the
II
length between nozzles of
the flow-guide pipes was
B. LOpen /d1=4.3
investigated.
C. LOpen /d1=0.0
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The relations between the different hydraulic jump
features and
were presented as a technique to
investigate the experimental measurements. Chart (1)
shows the relations between the ratio of water depths at
the end and the beginning of the jump
versus
for
the different AHOLE /d12 (i.e., AHOLE /d12=4.03, 2.68 and
1.34).
It clears that, the accuracy of the fitting lines is very
good the lowest value of R 2 =95%. Chart (2) shows the
relations between the ratio of the jump length
/d1
versus
for the different AHOLE /d12 . Chart (3) shows the
relations between the ratio of the lost energy
/
versus
for the different AHOLE /d12.
Fig -1: The sketches of experimental model [A] the
elevation of the model including flow-guide pipes [B] the
plan of the model [C] the side view of the flow-guide pipes
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
Chart (4A) shows the relations between
versus
for AHOLE /d12=1.34, 2.68 and 4.03. It clears that, the
case of AHOLE /d12= 4.03 gives minimum values of
compared to other values of AHOLE /d12. Chart (4B) shows
the relations between
/d1 versus
for AHOLE
/d12=1.34, 2.68 and 4.03.
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1034
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
80
14
R² = 0.9554
R² = 0.9722
60
LJUMP/d1
10
d2/d1
AHOLE/d1 =
6
40
AHOLE/d1 =
20
(A)
(A)
0
2
2
4
6
8
10
2
12
4
6
8
10
12
F r1
F r1
90
14
R² = 0.9846
R² = 0.9563
11
LJUMP/d1
d2/d1
70
8
AHOLE/d1 =
5
50
AHOLE/d1 =
30
(B)
(B)
2
10
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
F r1
8
10
12
F r1
14
70
R² = 0.9875
R² = 0.9601
11
LJUMP/d1
d2/d1
55
8
40
AHOLE/d1 =1.
5
AHOLE/d1 =1.
25
(C)
(C)
10
2
2
4
6
8
10
F r1
© 2019, IRJET
|
4
6
8
10
F r1
Chart -1: The relations between
𝐹𝑟 for the different
2
𝑑
𝑑
versus
𝐴𝐻𝑂𝐿𝐸
𝑑
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
Chart -2: The relations between
𝐿𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃
versus 𝐹𝑟 for the different
.
𝑑
𝐴𝐻𝑂𝐿𝐸
𝑑
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1035
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
0.9
14
R² = 0.9846
R² = 0.9648
R² = 0.9875
(A)
0.7
R² = 0.9554
ELOST/E1
10
d2/d1
0.5
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =1.
6
0.3
(A)
0.1
2
4
6
8
10
2
12
2
F r1
4
0.9
F r1
6
8
10
84
R² = 0.9877
(B)
0.7
R² = 0.9563
LJUMP/d1
ELOST/E1
64
0.5
AHOLE/d1 =
R² = 0.9722
44
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =1.
0.3
24
(B)
R² = 0.9601
0.1
2
4
6
8
10
4
12
2
F r1
0.8
4
6
F r1
8
10
R² = 0.9648
0.8
(C)
R² = 0.9819
R² = 0.9877
R² = 0.9819
0.6
ELOST/E1
ELOST/E1
0.6
0.4
0.4
AHOLE/d1 =1.
0.2
AHOLE/d1 =
AHOLE/d1 =
0.2
AHOLE/d1 =1.
(C)
0
0
2
4
6
8
2
10
F r1
Chart -3: The relations between
for the different
© 2019, IRJET
|
𝐸𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑇
𝐸
F r1
6
8
10
Chart -4: The relations between the different
jump characteristics versus 𝐹𝑟 for the different
versus 𝐹𝑟
𝐴𝐻𝑂𝐿𝐸
𝐴𝐻𝑂𝐿𝐸
𝑑
Impact Factor value: 7.34
4
𝑑
|
.
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1036
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
It clears that, the case of AHOLE/d12= 4.03 gives the
minimum values of
/d1 compared to other values of
AHOLE /d12. Chart (4C) shows the relations between
/
versus
for AHOLE /d12=1.34, 2.68 and 4.03. It
clears that, the case of AHOLE /d12= 4.03 gives the highest
values of
/ compared to other values of AHOLE /d12.
Chart (5) shows the relations between the ratio of
water depths at the end and beginning of the jump
versus
for the different
/d1(i.e.,
/d1=1.7,
4.3 and 0.0 ).
It clears that, the accuracy of the fitting lines is very
good and the lowest value of R2 =95.5%. Chart (6) shows
the relations between the ratio of the jump length
/d1 versus
for the different
/d1. Chart (7) shows
the relations between the ratio of the lost energy
/
versus
for the different
/d1.
/d1. In contrast, it gives the highest values of
/ .
●
The case of two columns of three rows of flow-guide
pipes with length between their nozzles (LOpen/d1 =
4.3) gives the lowest values of
and
/d1.
In contrast, it gives the highest values of
/ .
●
The new basin reduced the relative depth of the jump
by 14.7%;
●
The new basin reduced the relative length of the
hydraulic jump by 31%.
●
The case of the new basin increased the energy Loss
by 4%.
14
Chart (8A) shows the relations between
versus
for
/d1.=0.0, 1.7 and 4.3. It is clear that, the case
of
/d1 =4.3 gives the lowest values of
compared to other values of
/d1. Chart (8B) shows
the relations between
/d1 versus
for
/d1=0.0, 1.7 and 4.3.
R² = 0.9554
10
d2/d1
LOpen/d1=1.7
6
(A)
It clears that, the case of
/d1= 4.3 gives the
lowest values of
/d1 compared to other values. Chart
(8C) shows the relations between
/
versus
for
/d1=0.0, 1.7 and 4.3. It is clear that, the case of
/d1= 4.3 gives the highest values of
/ .
Chart (9A) shows the relations between
versus
for the case of no pipe guides and the new proposed
basin (AHOLE /d12= 4.03 and
/d1.= 4.3). It clears that,
the case of the new basin gives the lowest values of
compared to the case of no pipe guides. It reduced the
relative depth of the investigated jump
by 14.7%.
Chart (9B) shows the relations between
/d1 versus
for the case of no pipe guides and the new basin. It is
clear that, the case of the new basin reduced the relative
length of the hydraulic jump by 31%. Chart (9C) shows the
relations between
/ versus
for the case of no
pipe guides and the new basin. The new basin increased
the energy Loss by 4% compared to the case of no flowguide pipes.
2
2
4
6
8
11
d2/d1
R² = 0.9822
8
LOpen/d1=4.3
5
(B)
2
2
4
6
8
14
d2/d1
R² = 0.9985
8
LOpen/d1=0.0
(C)
2
2
4
6
8
10
F r1
Chart -5: The relations between
The case of three rows of flow-guide pipes, (AHOLE
/d12= 4.03) gives the lowest values of
and
Impact Factor value: 7.34
12
11
The recent paper proposed guide pipes of the flow to
the side boundaries. The paper investigated the existence
of one, two and three rows of the pipes on characteristics
of the hydraulic jump. The results showed the following
conclusions:
|
10
F r1
5
© 2019, IRJET
12
14
5. CONCLUSIONS
●
10
F r1
𝐹𝑟 for the different
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
𝑑
𝑑
versus
𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛
𝑑
|
Page 1037
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
0.9
80
R² = 0.9648
R² = 0.9722
0.7
ELOST/E1
LJUMP/d1
60
0.5
40
LOpen/d1=1.7
20
(A)
4
6
8
(A)
0.1
0
2
LOpen/d1=1.7
0.3
10
2
12
4
6
8
10
12
F r1
F r1
0.9
90
R² = 0.9826
0.7
ELOST/E1
LJUMP/d1
70
R² = 0.8226
50
LOpen/d1=4.3
(B)
6
8
10
(B)
0.1
10
4
LOpen/d1=4.3
0.3
30
2
0.5
2
12
F r1
4
6
F r1
8
10
12
0.8
70
R² = 0.9838
0.6
R² = 0.9275
LJUMP/d1
ELOST/E1
55
0.4
40
LOpen/d1=0.0
LOpen/d1=0.0
0.2
25
(C)
(C)
0
10
2
2
4
6
8
10
4
6
8
10
F r1
F r1
𝐸𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑇
Chart -7: The relations between
Chart -6: The relations between
versus 𝐹𝑟 for the different
© 2019, IRJET
|
𝐿𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃
𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛
𝑑
versus 𝐹𝑟 for the different
𝑑
𝐸
𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛
𝑑
.
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1038
14
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
R² = 0.9916
p-ISSN:
2395-0072
R² = 0.9822
www.irjet.net
10
14
(A)
R² = 0.9985
d2/d11414
R² = 0.9822
R² = 0.9916
With no pipe
guide
R² = 0.9916
6
R² = 0.9554
10
New Basin
10
2/d1
dd2/d
1
LOpen/d1=1.7
LOpen/d1=4.3
LOpen/d1=0.0
6
2
662
2
84
4
F r1
6
8
(B)
4
F r1
22
R² = 0.9722
64
44
6
FFr1
r1
88
10
10
R² = 0.9828
(B)
R² = 0.8226
R² = 0.8226
44
R² = 0.8226
44
R² = 0.8226
R² == 0.9828
0.9828
R²
6464
44
44
With no pipe guide
24
LOpen/d1=1.7
LOpen/d1=4.3
LOpen/d1=0.0
With no pipe guide
With
no pipe
guide
New
Basin
New Basin
24
24
4
4
F r1
6
8
422
2
10
(C)
×
×
F r1
88
10
10
8
10
R² = 0.9826
R² = 0.9826
R² = 0.9826
R² = 0.9909
0.6
R² = 0.9838
R² = 0.9909
0.60.6
ELOST
/E
ELOST
ELOST
/E11/E1
ELOST/E1
4
6
FFr1r1 66
0.8
R² = 0.9826
0.6
44
0.8
0.8
R² = 0.9648
0.8
×
New Basin
4
4
2
10
New Basin
New
Basin
8484
64
R² = 0.9275
24
××
With no
no pipe
With
pipe8guide
guide
6
8422
10
/d1
LJUMPL
/d
JUMP
1
LJUMP
/d
1
2
×
R² = 0.9822
R² = 0.9822
10
d2/d1
LJUMP/d1
(A)
R² = 0.9909
0.4
LOpen/d1=1.7
0.4
LOpen/d1=4.3
0.2
With no pipe guide
0.2
WithNew
no pipe
pipe
guide
With
no
guide ××
Basin
0.20.2
0
LOpen/d1=0.0
0
2
4
F r1
6
8
10
© 2019, IRJET
|
𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛
𝑑
4
4
4
New Basin
8
F r1 6 New Basin
F r166
F r1
10
8
10
8
10
Chart -9: The relations between the
different jump characteristics versus 𝐹𝑟 for
the new basin and the case of no pipe guide.
.
Impact Factor value: 7.34
2
2
Chart -8: The relations between the
different jump characteristics versus 𝐹𝑟
for the different
(C)
0
2
0
×
0.40.4
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1039
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 12 | Dec 2019
www.irjet.net
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
[11]
Mohamed, A. N. (2010). Modeling of free jumps
downstream symmetric and asymmetric expansions:
theoritical analysis and method of stochastic gradient
boosting. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 22(1), 110-120.
[12]
Nassar, M. A., Ibrahim, A. A., & Negm, A. M. (2009).
Modeling of Local Scour Down Stream of Hydraulic
Structures Using Support Vector Machines (SVMS).
In Proc. Of 6th Int. Conf. on Environmental Hydrology,
Cairo, Egypt.
[13]
Pagliara, S., Lotti, I., & Palermo, M. (2008). Hydraulic
jump on rough bed of stream rehabilitation
structures. Journal
of
Hydro-Environment
Research, 2(1), 29-38.
[14]
Wang, H., & Chanson, H. (2015). Experimental study of
turbulent fluctuations in hydraulic jumps. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 141(7), 04015010.
[15]
Wu, S. Q., Wu, X. F., Zhou, H., & Chen, H. L. (2008).
Model experiment study of effect of discharge
atomization for energy dissipation by hydraulic
jump. Advances in Water Science, 19(1), 84.
REFERENCES
[1]
Abdel-Aal, G. M., Elfiky, M. M., Negm, A. M., & Nasser,
M. A. (2004). Effect of Management and Operation on
Scour Characteristics Ds of Multi Vent Regulators. Sc.
Bull., Fac. of Eng., Ain Shams Univ, 39(4), 385-400.
[2]
Alikhani, A., Behrozi-Rad, R., & Fathi-Moghadam, M.
(2010). Hydraulic jump in stilling basin with vertical
end
sill. International
journal
of
physical
sciences, 5(1), 25-29.
[3]
Babaali, H., Shamsai, A., & Vosoughifar, H. (2015).
Computational modeling of the hydraulic jump in the
stilling basin with convergence walls using CFD
codes. Arabian
Journal
for
Science
and
Engineering, 40(2), 381-395.
[4]
[5]
Deshmukh, A. A. (2018). Construction of Rough
Bedded Channels for Achieving High Energy
Dissipation in Hydraulic Jump (Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Civil Engineering, Visvesvaraya
National Institute of Technology, Nagpur).
Elfiky, M. M., Abdel-Aal, G. M., Owais, T. M., & Nasser,
M. A. (2005). Prediction and control of local scour DS
of heading-up structures. Ain Shams Journal, of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Eng., Ain Shams University,
Cairo, Egypt, 40(4).
[6]
Gavhane, A. T., Sathe, N. J., Hinge, G. A., & Jain, S. S.
(2018). Studies of Design of Hydraulic Jump Type
Stilling Basin in Laboratory for Gunjawani Dam,
Maharashtra, India. Journal of Water Resource
Engineering and Management, 4(3), 15-22.
[7]
Habib, A. A., & Nassar, M. A. (2013). Characteristics of
Flow and Scour under the Effect of Curved Steel
Roughness Elements. The Egyptian Int. J. of
Engineering Sciences & Technology, 16(1).
[8]
Habib, A. A., & Nassar, M. A. (2014). Investigating
Theoretically and Experimentally the Effect of A
Movable Lateral Sill on Hydraulic Jump. The Egyptian
International Journal of Engineering Sciences &
Technology, 17(4).
[9]
Hoyal, D. C. J. D., & Sheets, B. A. (2009, August).
Hydraulic jumps as controls on the evolution of
distributary channel networks on experimental
submarine fans. In The 33rd international association
of Hydraulic Research Congress, London.
[10]
Matin, M. A., Hasan, M., & Islam, M. R. (2008).
Experiment on hydraulic jump in sudden expansion in
a sloping rectangular channel. Journal of Civil
Engineering (IEB), 36(2), 65-77.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
BIOGRAPHIES
M. A. Nassar, Associate professor,
Department
of Construction
Engineering,
College
of
Engineering in Al-Qunfudhah,
Umm Al-Qura University, KSA.
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1040