Structure of Flow in Hydraulic Jumps in Horizontal Rectangular

Channels
Mohamed E. Ammar | 1366639
A report submitted as a term project for CIV E 631 Engineering Fluid Mechanics

Introduction
Hydraulic jumps were firstly introduced by Leonardo da Vinci in the 16
th
century. Two centuries
later, many studies started dealing with the subject from a macroscopic point of view while less
attention was given to the internal microscopic flow in the jump (Hager, 1991, and
McCorquodale et al., 1983).
Bakhmeteff and Matzke (1936) had done the first measurements of velocities in a hydraulic jump.
Followed by, Rouse et al. (1959) who made their first attempt to understand the turbulence
structure of the hydraulic jump. Their study was a significant contribution in the subject. They
were able to plot the velocity field for three Froude numbers of 2, 4, and 6 for a free hydraulic
jumps in an air model using a hot-wire anemometer.
Later, and after the critic of using the air model of not being able to simulate all aspects of the
hydraulic jump, Rajaratnam (1965) described completely the flow pattern where the time-
averaged velocity and pressure fields were concerned. He presented the hydraulic jump as a case
of a plane turbulent wall jet under adverse pressure gradient through studying nine super critical
Froude numbers ranging from 2.68 to 9.78. Other attempts were done using analytical approach
for the study of the internal characteristics of the jump, like that was done by McCorquodale et al.
(1983). The turbulence production and energy dissipation for flow with low Froude numbers are
studied by Liu et al. (2004) and Mignot and Cienfuegos (2010).
This report starts with a view on the velocity characteristics inside the hydraulic jump obtained by
some researchers, considering the velocity distribution, the maximum velocity and its decay with
distance and the different relations developed. Then a look on the work done on the turbulence
production and energy dissipation within the jump is included as well. Figure 1 shows a definition
sketch for the different parameters used in this report.
Velocity Distribution
Starting with the work done by Rajaratnam (1965), he resembled the velocity distribution profiles
in a hydraulic jump as that represented by a classical wall jet with slightly modified distribution.
The velocity measurements were done using calibrated Prandtl-type pitot static type and restricted
the measurements to the forward flow zone. Although the Prandtl tube is insensitive to the angle
of yaw in regard to the velocity measurements but appreciable error appears in the region where
0
m
u u and in the backward flow on top, thus the measurements in the backward flow regions
were not considered.


Figure 1. Definition sketch of the different parameters presented in this report
He observed of the velocities with the beginning of the jump near the vena contract, and found
that the velocity distribution is uniform for 95 percent of the depth of the flow with an extremely
thin boundary layer. Moving along the jump flow direction, the experiments showed that the
forward velocity distribution is more or less similar through different sections for Froude
numbers greater than approximately 3.9 and with
1
y x greater than 9.0 and it takes a form of a
single curve at least for the free mixing region. The results also agreed reasonably well with other
investigators like Rouse et al. (1959). Figure 2 shows the results of the velocity distribution in a
non-dimensional form.

Figure 2. Velocity distribution in jump (After Rajaratnam, 1965)
For the boundary layer part, where 0 > c c y u , the data were re-plotted in the form of the defect
law because of the scatter when plotted in the dimensional form used in the free mixing part
(Figure 3). It was found that it follows closely the velocity defect law for the two dimensional
channel flows.

Figure 3. Defect law plot for the boundary layer part
McCorquodale et al. (1983) presented the velocity distribution within the hydraulic jump based
on the experimental observations by Rajaratnam (1965) and Nagaratnam (1957) by two functions:
the 1/7
th
power law for the boundary layer part and the Gaussian distribution for the free mixing
zone as below:
o
o
s s = y
y
u u
m
0 ; ) (
7
1

(1)
h y h y C u u u
t
< < + = 0 ); ) / ( 4 exp(
2
0
o o
(2)
In which, ) (
0
u u u
m t
= ,
0
u is the horizontal velocity as y , h is the depth of the flow,
and C is a constant equals to 0.693.
Further, they followed an analytical approach using the Strip Integral method firstly applied by
Narayanan (1975) to compute the flow patterns for the classical hydraulic jump. They reduced the
time averaged continuity and momentum equations to a set of ordinary differential equations
which describe the longitudinal variation of four unknown parameters, h u
m
, ,o (equivalent depth
of water), and
0
u as follows:
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

4
3
2
1
1
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0
E
E
E
E
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
dx
du
dx
du
dx
d
dx
dh
m
o

(3)
The coefficient matrix ] [ A and vector ] [E are functions of , , , h u
m
o and
0
u given in Appendix I
attached with this report.
After solving it numerically they showed some plots of typical numerical solutions. Figure 4
shows the dimensionless velocity distributions along the jump for 6
1
= F . They showed good
agreement between the theoretical velocity distribution and the measured distribution of Rouse et
al. (1959) at the beginning of the jump, but with a slight deviation near the jump end.

Figure 4. Velocity distribution for F1=6 for McCorquodale et al. (1983) analytical approach.
Further experimental results on the velocity distribution were collected by Hager (1992) with five
runs with 9 . 8 3 . 4
1
< < F . He approximated the velocity profile as:
Defining parameters U and Y as follows:
o
o

=
2
,
y
y
Y
u u
u u
U
s m
s

(4)
Then,
| | 1 0 ) 100 cos(
2
s s = Y Y U
(5)
where,
m
u is the maximum forward velocity,
s
u is the maximum backward velocity, o is vertical
distance to the location of
m
u (boundary layer thickness), and
2
y is the tail water depth (sequent
depth of
1
y ).
Hager presented his data in a dimensionless plot of
m
u u f = ) (q versus
1
o q y = (i.e. the same
dimensional form Rajaratnam used). He also approximated an expression for Rajaratnams results
as:
| |
12 . 0
) 1 exp( 2
- -
= y y
u
u
m

(6)
in which,
1
5 o y y =
-
provided 0 >
m
u u
Although the expression he approximated from Rajaratnams results shows that the maximum
velocity occurs at 1 =
-
y wherein 2 . 0
1
= o o , Rajaratnam found that it is equal to approximately
0.18.
Further investigation by Rajaratnam for the decay of the maximum velocity in a standardized
form of
1
U u
m
with
1
y x and plotted it. He found that in the case of free jump, the decay is
considerably faster and is regarded as the submergence increases. The results are represented in
Figure 5. McCorquodale et al. (1983) also were able to find the decay of the maximum velocity
and Figure 6 shows a comparison of their results with other researchers.

Figure 5. Variation of normalized maximum velocity
1
U u
m
with
1
y x
Hager (1992) represented the decay approximately as:
(

=
1 1
45
42
1
y
x
U
u
m

(7)
He also expressed the maximum forward and backward velocities as follows:
4 . 1 0 ), 2 exp(
8 . 1
s s = X X U
m

(8)
4 . 1 05 . 0 ,
1 . 1
1 . 0
sin < <
(

+
= X
X
U
s

(9)
Where, ) ( ) (
2 1
*
2
V V V u U
m m
= ,
*
2
V u U
s s
= , and
*
r
L x X =


Figure 6. Variation of maximum and surface velocities suggest by McCorquodale et al. (1983)
through analytical solution
Turbulence Production and Energy Dissipation in a Hydraulic Jump
Lie et al. (2004) studied the turbulence characteristics of a free hydraulic jump in a rectangular
channel through a laboratory investigation conducted using a Micro Acoustic Doppler
Velocimeter (MicroADV) with confining the experiments on law Froude number of 2.0, 2.5, and
3.32 due to the limitation of ADV in measuring bubbly two phase flow which is a main
characteristics in a hydraulic jump.
The data were processed included the turbulent velocities, they plotted the distribution of the
Reynolds stress
( ) v u ' '
, and longitudinal and vertical turbulence intensities
2
u'
and
2
v in a
form of a normalized variation of
2
u'
, 1
2
) ( U v
m
'
, and
2
1
) ( U v u
m
' '
with 2
y x
as shown
in Figure 7.

They found that the maximum turbulence intensities and Reynolds stress decrease rapidly with
2
y x
within the jump and level off gradually in the transition region from the jump
(approximately 10 times the tail water depth) to the normal open channel flow.
The maximum vertical turbulence intensity is about one half the maximum longitudinal
turbulence intensity and with a value of about 3% of
1
U

when approaching the end of the
transition region, whereas
m
u
|
.
|

\
|
'
2
has a value of about 5% of
1
U
.
( )
m
v u ' '

is about 0.04% of
2
1
U when approaching the end of the transition region.



Figure 7. Variation of normalized maximum turbulence intensities and Reynolds stress in central
vertical plane with 2
y x

Their results for the maximum vertical turbulence intensity and maximum Reynolds stress agreed
with other researchers for 85 . 2
1
= F except for 2
2
s y x and for 6
1
= F the results agreed for
2
2
> y x except for the maximum longitudinal turbulence intensity.
A check of similarity of Reynolds stress profile within the jump is carried out by them and is
shown in Figure 5. It was found to be approximately similar and the maximum value of Reynolds
stress occurs at 9 . 0 ~ o y . Similarity was also evident for the vertical turbulence intensity within
the jump as shown in Figure 7.
Also for the longitudinal turbulence intensity, although the distribution of the normalized
turbulence intensity
2
u'
was found to be approximately similar for
32 . 3
1
= F
and
5 . 2
1
= F
for
, 7 . 0
1
> o y
but some degree of scatter was found to appear for
0 . 2
1
= F
and
5 . 2
1
= F
for
smaller values of 1
o y
. Figure 7 shows the similarity for
, 7 . 0
1
> o y
while the degree of scatter
for
7 . 0
1
< o y
increases with the decrease of .
1
o y



Figure 8. Similarity profile of Reynolds stress Figure 9. Similarity profile of longitudinal
turbulence intensities

Figure 10. Similarity profile of vertical turbulence intensities
They also found that the maximum turbulence kinetic energy decreases linearly with 2
y x
within
the jump and gradually levels off in the transition region reaching a constant value of about 3% of
the kinetic energy of the uniform supercritical stream in front of the jump ) 04 . 0 (
1
5 . 0
= U K
m
.
They described the variation by the following equation (Figure 11):
196 . 0 016 . 0
2 1
5 . 0
+ = y x U K
m
(10)

Figure 11. Variation of maximum turbulence kinetic energy in central vertical plane with 2
y x

Other experimental investigation was done by Mignot and Cienfuegos (2010) focusing on energy
dissipation and turbulence production in two undeveloped and a partially developed inflow weak
hydraulic jumps, measured with micro-ADVs. The three analyzed jumps J1, J2, and J3 have
Froude numbers of 1.34, 1.88, and 1.99 respectively. They found that the maximum turbulence
production and turbulent kinetic energy mostly confined in the shear layer located in the upper
part of the water column for the undeveloped inflow jumps. Whereas for the partially developed
inflow hydraulic jump, maximum turbulence production and turbulent kinetic energy occur both
in the upper shear layer and the near-wall roller, especially in the downstream part of the jump.
Figure 12 shows the measured values of the turbulent kinetic energy (k) for the three jumps.

Figure 12. Measured values of the turbulent kinetic energy (k) for the three measured hydraulic
jumps. The maximum k values are depicted by full lines.

Energy dissipation
The immensity size of modern dams and hydraulic structures cause tremendous energies at the
base of these structures. Some means of dissipating that energy of high velocity flow is required
to prevent score of riverbed, minimize erosion, and prevent undermining of the dam itself. The
use of stilling basin is a common approach for achieving that target which mostly encounters the
hydraulic jump as a mechanism of dissipation (Elevatorski, 1959).
Rajaratnam (1965) was able to predict the energy profile along the hydraulic jump. He was able
to write an expression for the normalized energy as follows:
2
1
2
2
1
632 . 0
1
2
1
1
1
F
y
x
f
F
y
y
E
E
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
' ' +
=

(11)
in which

1
E

is the specific energy at the beginning of the jump.
Through plotting the energy profile of the jump for , 05 . 9
1
= F he showed that the energy falls
rapidly in the earlier part of the jump and approaches asymptotically the downstream energy line
(Figure 13).

Figure 13. Prediction of the energy profile
McCorquodale el al. (1983) and through their analytical approach, they were able to predict the
energy losses variation along the jump. In a plot (Figure 14) they compared their results
considering 8
1
= F to Rajaratnam ( ) 05 . 9
1
= F and Rouse et al. ( ) 6 & 4
1
= F and the rapid drop
in the relative energy at the beginning of the jump agrees with the air model of Rouse et al. (1959)
and is close to the curved suggested by Rajaratnam (1965).

Figure 14. Relative energy loss for various initial Froude numbers

Lie et al. (2004) were able through their
measurements using the MicroADV to plot the
distribution of the normalized energy
dissipation rate ) (c in the form of
( )
1
3
1
o co y f u
m
= . They found that for
4 . 0
1
< o y the dissipation rates are very small
and then quickly increase with
1
o y within the
jump, as shown in Figure 15.
They indicated that the dissipation rate
increases with Froude number. An equation for
the average energy dissipation rate per unit
mass c in the jump is defined as:

) ( 5 . 0
2 1
y y W L
h gQ
j
+
A
=

c
(12)
where = density of water; =
j
L length of the
jump; W width of the flume; and = Ah energy
loss in the jump expressed as a head. The
average energy dissipation rates for the three
experiments are 0.24, 0.49, and 0.86m
2
/sec
3
for
=
1
F 2.0, 2.5, and 3.32 respectively.


Figure 15. Distribution of normalized energy
dissipation rate in hydraulic jump

Through reaching this stage, the report gives an overview of the internal flow characteristics of
the hydraulic jump from detailed studies on the velocity distribution inside the jump, the
turbulence production and the variation properties of the turbulence within the jump, and finally
the energy dissipation.
Appendix I
The elements of the coefficient matrix (Eq. 4) adopted from McCorquodale et al. (1983) are:






References
Elevatorski, E. A. (1959). Hydraulic Energy Dissipators, McGraw. Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, USA.
Hager, W. H. (1992). Energy Dissipators and Hydraulic Jump. Springer publishers.
Liu, M., Rajaratnam, N., and Zhu, D. (2004). Turbulence Structure of Hydraulic Jumps of Low
Froude Numbers" J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(6), 511520.

McCorquodale, J. and Khalifa, A. (1983). Internal Flow in Hydraulic Jumps. J. Hydraul. Eng.,
109(5), 684701.
Mignot, E. and Cienfuegos, R. (2010). Energy Dissipation and Turbulent Production in Weak
Hydraulic Jumps. J. Hydraul. Eng., 136(2), 116121.
Nagaratnam, S., (1957). The Mechanism of Energy Dissipation. Thesis presented to the State
University of Iowa, at Iowa City, Iowa, in a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science.
Narayanan, R. (1975). Wall Jet Analogy to Hydraulic Jump. Journal of the Hydraulics
Division, ASCE, 101 3, 347359.
Rajaratnam, N. (1965). The Hydraulic Jump as a Wall Jet. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
ASCE, Vol. 91, No. HY5, pp. 107-132.
Rouse, Siao & Nagaratnam. (1959). Turbulence Characteristics of the Hydraulic Jump. ASCE
Transactions.