Kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients in straight compound channels with vegetated floodplain

Experimental Analysis on the Use of Counterflow Jets as a System for the Stabilization of the Spatial Hydraulic Jump

“…Based on the results of this analysis, three of the best-performing geometries were selected to be tested under more severe tailwater levels (75, 80, and 90% of hs) in order to investigate the effectiveness of the counterflow jets under a large spectrum of boundary conditions, as may occur in the actual operating conditions of a hydraulic structure. In this phase, 3D velocity measurements (with an electromagnetic velocity meter (JFE Advantech Co. ACM3-RS 3 axis, with an accuracy of ±2% of true velocity)) in four different crosssections, located 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 m downstream from the dissipator, allowed a more detailed reconstruction of the flow velocity field in the tailwater channel, with the possibility of calculating the global Coriolis and Boussinesq correction coefficients of the flow, α and β [1,28]:…”

Longitudinal dispersive coefficient in channels with aquatic vegetation: A review

“…Before discussing the response of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient to the depth ratio of floodplains to the main channels, the hydraulic features of the compound channel flows with varying r D should be briefly explained. Different water depths, which are the main variables for different relative depth in natural rivers, affect the discharge capacity, variations in velocity, and momentum exchange between the main channels and floodplains, characterized by secondary currents and coherent vortexes [78][79][80] . Many studies have investigated the momentum exchange between the main channels and floodplains based on the shear stress near the interface [81] or the scale of coherent vortexes [82] .…”

Models for kinetic energy and momentum correction coefficients for non-prismatic compound channels using regression and gene expression programming

“…Water depths were measured directly with a point gauge located on an instrument carriage. The flow depth measurements were taken along the centre of the flume at an interval of 0.5 m in [22] Simple channel N/A Average values of α and β were recommended as 1.06 and 1.02 Li and Hager [15] N/A N/A Values of α and β depend significantly on the Manning roughness coefficient Al Khatib and Gogus [2] Symmetric compound flume Non-vegetated Values of α and β do not significantly vary with increasing main channel height Seckin et al [3] Symmetric compound channel Non-vegetated average Non-vegetated average values of α and β were obtained at 1.094 and 1.034, respectively Basak and Alauddin [23] Simple converging channel Non-vegetated Average values of α at inlet and outlet found to be 1.015 and 1.39 Keshavarzi et al [24] Symmetric compound channel Non-vegetated Values of α and β decreased significantly with the installation of the submerged vane inside the main channel Mohanty et al [25] Compound channel Non-vegetated Floodplain width strongly affects the values of α and β Luo [26] Symmetric compound channel Non-vegetated A series of equations was presented for the determination of α and β Al-Khatib [27] Asymmetric compound flume Non-vegetated Average values of α and β were found to be 1.15 and 1.12 Kubrak et al [28] Simple rectangular channel Partly vegetated Values of α and β can be as high as 2.8 and 1.5, respectively Parsaie and Haghiabi [29] Symmetric compound channel Non-vegetated Values of α and β can be as high as 2.2 and 1.4, respectively Hamidifar et al [30] Asymmetric compound channel Non-vegetated Average values of α and β were found to be 1.28 and 1.10 both upstream and downstream prismatic parts of the flume and at every 0.1 m in converging part of the flume. Figure 2 shows the non-prismatic compound channel with travelling bridges and flow measurement instruments.…”