In a hydraulic jump, a supercritical open-channel flow dissipates a large part of its kinetic energy, usually through a strong turbulent roller, and turns into a subcritical flow. Several hydraulic phenomena (strong turbulence effects, downstream wave propagation, unsteadiness, air entrainment) characterize the different jump types (undular, weak, steady, strong. etc..) which can occur depending on the value of the upstream Froude number. The hydraulic jump appears therefore to be a suitable test case to validate different SPH models developed to analyse unsteady turbulent open-channel flows. The present paper investigates the influence of numerical parameters and turbulence models by comparing 2D and 3D SPH solutions with reference literature data (Chow, 1959), as well as with laboratory data (Ben Meftah et al, 2008). The comparison between SPH and experimental results shows a relevant influence of smoothing procedures and of different turbulence models, such as mixing length (De Padova et al, 2009) or Standard k-epsilon, on the free-surface profile description; however, the agreement of computed velocity profiles and water elevations with laboratory data confirms the adequacy of the SPH description.

Hydraulic jump simulation by SPH

De Padova D;MOSSA, Michele;
2010

Abstract

In a hydraulic jump, a supercritical open-channel flow dissipates a large part of its kinetic energy, usually through a strong turbulent roller, and turns into a subcritical flow. Several hydraulic phenomena (strong turbulence effects, downstream wave propagation, unsteadiness, air entrainment) characterize the different jump types (undular, weak, steady, strong. etc..) which can occur depending on the value of the upstream Froude number. The hydraulic jump appears therefore to be a suitable test case to validate different SPH models developed to analyse unsteady turbulent open-channel flows. The present paper investigates the influence of numerical parameters and turbulence models by comparing 2D and 3D SPH solutions with reference literature data (Chow, 1959), as well as with laboratory data (Ben Meftah et al, 2008). The comparison between SPH and experimental results shows a relevant influence of smoothing procedures and of different turbulence models, such as mixing length (De Padova et al, 2009) or Standard k-epsilon, on the free-surface profile description; however, the agreement of computed velocity profiles and water elevations with laboratory data confirms the adequacy of the SPH description.
5th International SPHERIC Workshop
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11589/22755
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact