Jordan University of Science and Technology

Civil Engineering Department

Fluid mechanics and hydraulics lab (CE354)

Student Name: abdallah alhassan ID: 120034

Experiment number : 8

Experiment Name : hydraulic jump

Instructor: DR.Fayez Abdullah TA Name:Tasneem Alkatib
Submission Date: 17/7/2019 SEC# 1

Evaluation Elements Grade

1 Cover page

2 Introduction

3 Objectives

4 Apparatus

5 Theory

6 Procedure

7 Calculations

8 Sample calculation

9 Discussion

10 Conclusions

Total
  Introduction

Hydraulic jump in open channels can be attributed to rapidly varied flow where a
significant change in velocity occurs from super-critical flow to sub-critical flow.
This fact may owe to the presence of some structures obstructing the movement
of flow in open channels. Under-shot weir or gate is the most impressive example
for hydraulic jump formation in canals where the flow undergoes high velocity
under gates with upstream small depth and returns back to a higher downstream
conjugate depth away from the gate with lower velocity. Froude number
represents the clear impact of nonuniform flow velocity in open channels where
super-critical flow is obtained at Froude number greater than 1, whereas sub-
critical flow is indicated at Froude number less than 1. The main advantage of
hydraulic jump occurrence in canals is energy dissipation downstream spillways
where accumulation of water behind the gate is associated to the high flow
velocity which abruptly declines downstream gate and thus avoiding bed erosion
and scour. In 1818, experiments were firstly performed by bidone for hydraulic
jump examination. Several models were later proposed to illustrate the
characteristics of super-critical low in open channels [1-5]. Consecutively,
researches have managed to introduce analytical and empirical computations for
the length of hydraulic jump, energy loss and influence of different gate openings
on hydraulic jump formation [6-8]. Further studies have been discussed to show
the relationship between conjugate depth ratio, Froude number and energy
dissipated in the hydraulic jump [9]. Mathematical models based on experimental
studies have currently revealed an attractive way to demonstrate the influence of
various parameters on canal performance. Moreover, such models provide a
beneficially robust tool to ensure the obtained outcomes and approach more
accurate results. However, the former computations ignore the existence of shear
force in hydraulic jump formation. In this regard, former equations concerning
hydraulic jump included in table 1 are utilized to simulate the flow behavior and
compared with the measured outcomes of an experimental flume (Armfield
Model No. C4-MKII-5.0-11). Also, the influence of flow structures on water level
variation is studied to reveal shear force existence due to bed roughness [10- 12].
In this paper, several laboratory experiments are accomplished to explore the
upstream conjugate depth for various discharges and downstream water depths
by adjusting both flow meter and over-shot weir. Also, the type of hydraulic jump
can be observed by simulating Froude number responsible for super-critical flow
under the impact of upstream conjugate depth. A novel alternation is developed
to express the response of hydraulic jump accompanied by critical depth
exploration using various flow structures. Furthermore, the location of jump
coupled with energy dissipated is investigated by varying the sluice gate openings
in the flume.

 Objectives

Determination of a critical depth for a specific discharge a channel.

Show transition of flow from rapid to tranquil with the resultant energy
dissipation which explains why Hydraulic Jumps are used in open channels and
hydraulic structures to remove excess energy from the flow.
 Apparatus
  Theory

Hydraulic jump is a natural phenomenon in open channel. It is an abrupt

reduction in flow velocity by means of sudden increase of the depth in the
downstream direction.

E1
E2

F2
F1

Take the free body of the water volume involved in the vicinity of a jump,as
shown in the above figure. The balance between the hydrostatic force F1 and F2 ,
represented by the two triangles and the momentum flux through section 1 and
2, per unit width of the channel may be expressed as : (a steady state)

F1  F2  q(V2  V1 )
Rearranging this equation :

F1  qV1  F2  qV2  Fs
or

f  F  qV
 The quantity f is known as the Specific Force per unit width of the channel. For a
given discharge, the specific force is a function of the water depth at a given
section. When the specific force, Fs , is plotted against the water depth, it also has
two limbs and vertex which occurs at the critical depth.
Substituting the following quantaties :

  q 
q
F  d2
, F2  d 2
, V1 
V2
d1 ,
1 2
2 2 d2
then ;

q2  d  d2 
 d1d 2  1 
g  2 
where q is the disvharge per unit width of the channel (Q/w) . This equation
may also be rearranged into a more convenient form as follows:

d2
d1

1
2
 1  8N 2
F1 1 
2
where N F1 is the Froude number of the approaching flow ,

V1
N F1 
gd1
Hydraulic jump usually takes place in a rather short reach in a channel.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that through a hydraulic jump the specific
forces immediately before and after a jump are approximately the same. The
value of F1 , can be computed from the given coditions of the approaching flow. If
we apply this value to the specific force curve, we can draw a vertical line that
gives the both the initial and sequent depth of a jump.
The energy head loss through the hydraulic jump, ΔE, may then be estimated by
applying the energy principle between section 1 & 2 : d 2  d1 3
E 
d1d 2
  Procedure

1. Ensure that the flume is horizontal with the downstream weir at the
bottom of its travel.
2. Place a sluice gate vertically in position with its bottom edge at 12.5 mm
above the flume bottom.
3. Open the inlet valve and admit water to flow.
4. Insert a downstream weir to ensure the hydraulic jump formation , and
wait for water flow to reach steadiness.
5. Measure inlet depth (d1) and sequent depth (d2) upstream and downstream
the jump.
6. Repeat step 2 through 5 - 7 times with decreasing order of gate opening 2
mm , and keeping the hydraulic jump on the middle of the channel via
adjusting the downstream weir height.
  Calculations

Data

Chaneel width, b = 7.8 cm

Q1 = 1.0586 L /sec
Q2 =1.1858 L /sec

Table #1
Gate
Opening,
hg 12 14 16 18 20

(mm)
Initial
Depth,
9.1 10.4 9.5 9.6 11
y1
(mm)
Sequent
Depth,
59.1 62 62 47 49
y2
(mm)
 Table #2
Gate
Opening,
hg 12 14 16 18 20

(mm)
Initial
Depth,
9.5 13.1 12.3 12.3 14.5
y1
(mm)
Sequent
Depth,
58 64 72 73 74
y2
(mm)

Calculations

Q1 = 0.000101 m3 /sec Table #3

Y1(mm) Y2(mm) y2/y1 V1 V2 F1 F2 h 

f 1 2
E1 E2 FR1 FR2
1

2
 2

1  8F1  1
d1

9.1 59.1 6.495 0.142 0.022 4.741 0.286 6.223 6.385 0.010 0.059 0.046 1.339
10.4 62 5.962 0.124 0.021 3.880 0.267 5.010 5.122 0.011 0.062 0.054 1.473
9.5 62 6.526 0.136 0.021 4.445 0.267 5.805 6.465 0.010 0.062 0.048 1.473
9.6 47 4.896 0.134 0.027 4.375 0.404 5.708 3.019 0.011 0.047 0.049 0.848
11 49 4.455 0.117 0.026 3.567 0.379 4.570 2.314 0.012 0.049 0.058 0.921
 Q2 0.00009 m3 /sec Table #4

2
 2
1  8 F1  1  h 
f 1 2

d1
Y1(mm) Y2(mm) y2/y1 V1 V2 F1 F2 E1 E2 FR1 FR2
9.5 58 6.105 0.126 0.021 4.138 0.274 5.373 0.052 0.010 0.058 0.047 1.289
13.1 64 4.885 0.092 0.019 2.555 0.237 3.148 0.039 0.014 0.064 0.075 1.569
12.3 72 5.854 0.098 0.017 2.809 0.198 3.503 0.060 0.013 0.072 0.068 1.985
12.3 73 5.935 0.098 0.016 2.809 0.194 3.503 0.062 0.013 0.073 0.068 2.040
14.5 74 5.103 0.083 0.016 2.194 0.190 2.643 0.049 0.015 0.074 0.089 2.097
  Sample calculation

Q=.0025/24.7 = .001005 m3\sec.

Y1\y2=.0591\.0091=6.495

F1=1.42/(9.81*.0091)^.5

 Discussion

In this study, a hydraulic experiment was performed by using a channel with a

fixed weir and sluice gate-type movable weir installation to examine the resulting
hydraulic jump and differences of each weir type. In the experiment, energy
dissipator installation was considered to protect the bed under the movable weir.
The following results were found: Energy dissipators for energy reduction at the
sluice gate were found to dissipate energy by more than 50% per unit length
compared with the non-dissipator installation status if installed at a 10% height of
the average river water depth in a location as far as approximately 70% of the
average river water depth. Although the sluice gate-type movable weir showed
similar hydraulic jump lengths to those of the fixed weir, its supercritical flow
length increased, so its length to the hydraulic jump start point rose considerably.
For this reason, it is deemed that aprons for bed protection from scouring need to
be 2–4 times sufficiently longer by considering the Froude numbers upon
discharge. Regarding hydraulic jump or the energy dissipation issues of sluice
gate-type movable weirs, when movable-weir downstream water level
differences grow larger or the discharge flow increases, their openness height
should be elevated (Fr < 2.5) to protect the downstream area. While fixed weirs
involve drop head and flow diversion in dissipating energy, sluice gate-type
movable weirs have no factor to help them dissipate energy other than the
frictional force under the same upstream conditions and in the same discharge
flow. Therefore, such movable weirs require apron installation of a sufficient
length for frictional force-led energy dissipation. In this study, a hydraulic
experiment and numerical experiment were performed in a channel installed with
a sluice gate-type movable weir to review hydraulic jump distances and hydraulic
jump size changes. Thus, not only the hydraulic jump distances, but also the
distances until hydraulic jump occurrence were researched. As sluice gate-type
movable weirs create a supercritical flow region, they could cause hydraulic
problems, including scouring in the bed due to flow velocity. In this case, it seems
necessary to install energy dissipators. To overcome the limitations of this
hydraulic experiment, future hydraulic and numerical experiments are expected
to involve more diverse conditions to propose a dissipation design for energy
reduction and bed protection in the downstream of sluice gate-type movable
weirs.
  Conclusions

A hydraulic jump experiment was accomplished in a rectangular open channel

flume under the influence of various flow structures. Several experimental runs
were accomplished to obtain Y2 by measuring Y1 and Q using different flow
structures and various gate openings. The measured values of Y2 disagree with
the simulated results of former equations. Also, the measured Y2 varies by
varying the flow structure for the same Y1 and Q that reveals that the former
equations of hydraulic jump should be modified to show the impact of shear force
due to friction between hydraulic jump and bed of water canals. The change in
downstream depth is relevant to the existence of shear force resistance obtained
by the flow structure in water canals that can lead to bed scouring. Regarding
open channel flume, the impact of shear force may owe to the friction between
hydraulic jump flow and wall sides. Also, the experimental runs revealed that
upstream Froude number increases from 1.4 to 2.6 by increasing downstream
depth from 5 cm to 6 cm at constant discharge and gate opening where the jump
returns back to the gate owing to the decline in specific force vena contraction