<b>An alternative method for interpreting jet erosion test (JET) data: part 1. Theory</b>

Rose, C. W.; Olley, Jon; Haddadchi, Arman; Brooks, Andrew Pattrick; McMahon, Joe

doi:10.1002/esp.4269

Cited by 7 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[While the mini jet tester equipment is fairly standard, Figure in Rose et al . () provides a schematic diagram.] Jet diameter ( d ) was 3.175 mm, and the distance from the origin of the jet to the initial soil surface ( p 0 ) is given by:

p_{0} = initial gauge + 2.5 d

…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second of the listed objectives was to further investigate the utility of interpreting scour profile data in terms of a generalized Gaussian shape descriptor described by Rose et al . () which was presented as providing a flexible and effective tool for such purposes. This generalized descriptor was derived by removing the direct link made in the standard Gaussian equation between the standard deviation σ , which describes the shape of the expression, and the maximum value of y (in meters) which is

((), \frac{1}{σ \sqrt{2 π}})

.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Benoit (), Rose et al . () give the following expression for the total kinetic energy (KE) flux of the jet (in J/s) as it penetrates a water body:

KE = 0.4167 \frac{italicρπ d^{3} U^{3}}{p} = \frac{K}{p}

where p is the distance from the origin of the jet into free water, and K involves jet diameter d (in metres) and initial jet velocity U (in m/s) which is given by:

U = {(2 {italicgh}_{1})}^{1 / 2}

where h 1 is the water head measured above the jet orifice. Since h 1 can vary between experiments, so does the value of K in Equation .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This outline [when taken in association with Rose et al . ()] could be helpful to others who may wish to use this alternative method of analysis of JET data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to examine this possibility Rose et al . () has developed an alternative theory for interpreting jet tester data in which the additional measurement of scour volume or eroded soil mass is required. In this paper this theory is employed in analysing data from both a prepared uniform soil and from riverine field sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An alternative method for interpreting JET erosion test (JET) data: Part 2. Application

Haddadchi

Rose

Olley

et al. 2017

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the results of jet tester experiments on soil samples of uniform properties which allow quantitative application of the new theory proposed in part 1 of these publications. This theory explores the possibly that a more adequate indicator of soil erodibility may be obtained by using the mass (and so volume) of soil eroded by the jet and the depth of scour penetration, rather than by using penetration depth alone, as assumed in the commonly‐used data interpretation method. It is shown that scour geometry can be well described using a generalized form of the Gaussian function, defined by its standard deviation and maximum depth. Using a published expression for jet kinetic energy flux, the new theory divides this flux into that used to erode soil, and the remainder which is dissipated in a variety of ways. Jet experiments on a specially‐prepared uniform soil sample are reported which provide the key to determining the spatial variability in the profile resistance to erosion offered by field soils. This resistance is expressed in the work required to erode unit mass of soil, denoted as J (in J/kg). The paper also gives results obtained on the profile variation in J for jet tests carried out at riverine sites on the upper Brisbane River, Queensland, Australia. As expected in most natural soil profiles, the results show an increase in J with depth in the profile. The soil resistance (J) is compared to the traditional interpretation of soil erodibility, (kd). The graphical comparison of these two indicators illustrates the inverse type of relationship between them which is expected from their respective definitions, but this relationship is associated with significant scatter. Possible reasons for this scatter are given, together with comments on jet tester experience in a wide variety of soil types. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

p_{0} = initial gauge + 2.5 d

…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

((), \frac{1}{σ \sqrt{2 π}})

.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Benoit (), Rose et al . () give the following expression for the total kinetic energy (KE) flux of the jet (in J/s) as it penetrates a water body:

KE = 0.4167 \frac{italicρπ d^{3} U^{3}}{p} = \frac{K}{p}

where p is the distance from the origin of the jet into free water, and K involves jet diameter d (in metres) and initial jet velocity U (in m/s) which is given by:

U = {(2 {italicgh}_{1})}^{1 / 2}

where h 1 is the water head measured above the jet orifice. Since h 1 can vary between experiments, so does the value of K in Equation .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This outline [when taken in association with Rose et al . ()] could be helpful to others who may wish to use this alternative method of analysis of JET data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations