4.3 Article

Flow development in rough-bed open channels: mean velocities, turbulence statistics, velocity spectra, and secondary currents

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 133-144

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2022.2132311

关键词

Coherent structures; hydraulic experiments; open-channel flow; velocity spectra; turbulence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The channel length required for the development of the flow is important in designing hydraulic structures or planning research experiments. However, information on flow development length (L-D) is scarce and its definition remains unclear. This paper offers a physics-based definition for L-D and presents results of laboratory studies to provide guidance on its quantitative assessment. The results suggest that different flow characteristics require different lengths of L-D, with some requiring up to 150 flow depths.
The channel length required for the development of the flow, from the channel entrance to full establishment, is often a prerequisite when designing hydraulic structures or planning research experiments in open channels. However, the information on the flow development length (L-D) is scarce, and even its definition remains vague. In hydraulic experiments, this lack of knowledge introduces great uncertainty, often making comparisons of findings from different studies questionable. This paper offers a physics-based definition for L-D, and reports results of systematic laboratory studies to provide guidance on its quantitative assessment. Our data for uniform flows suggest that up to 100 flow depths (H) are required for mean velocity field (including sidewall secondary currents), turbulent stresses (except streamwise variance), velocity skewness and kurtosis, and depth-scale large-scale-motions to become essentially independent of the streamwise coordinate. However, very large-scale-motions, streamwise velocity variance, and roughness-induced secondary currents are found to require longer L-D of around 150H.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据