Experimental Comparison of Variations in Water Level, Reynolds Shear Stress, and Flow Velocity Collected by Using ADV and PIV Around Undamaged and Damaged Piers during Generation of Positive Surges in Sloped and Horizontal Channels

Subject Areas : Article frome a thesis

Ehsan Oveici ¹ , Omid Tayari ² , Navid Jalalkamali ³

1 - Ph.D. Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

Received: 2020-06-10 Accepted : 2022-02-27 Published : 2022-01-21

Keywords: Experimental Model, Bridge pier, Particle Image Velocimetry, Acoustic Doppler velocimetry, Positive surge,

Abstract :

The presence of positive surges can cause bank destruction, bed scouring, and damages to structures such as bridge piers installed on the path. On the other hand, the remains and bridge pier destruction waste on the path affect velocity variations and flow surface fluctuations resulting from these surges and require careful investigations. This study comprises an experimental analysis of the effect of present damaged and undamaged bridge piers on flow pattern variations during the generation of positive surges in sloped and horizontal channels. To this aim, ADV was utilized to help collect three-dimensional flow velocity data. Moreover, PIV was used to help make a comparison with ADV data results. Four distinct probes were incorporated for bathymetry in the horizontal and the sloped channels. The obtained results were indicative of non-breaking undular surges generated in the horizontal channel and non-breaking and breaking undular surges formed in the sloped channel. In the sloped channel, the maximum velocity increase occurred with installation of two piers, which showed a 34.39% increase compared to that under the same conditions in the horizontal channel. Furthermore, the average water level variations due to the slope of the channel in cases without an element, with a damaged element, with an undamaged element, and with a combination of damaged and undamaged elements were respectively equal to 31.66, 32.70, 29.88, and 27.40%. In addition, the Reynolds shear stress values were also calculated in the sloped channel to be 7.6, 3.57, 1.38, and 1.68 times those in the horizontal channel.

References:

1.       Chanson H, Gualtieri C. 2008. Similitude and scale effects of air entrainment in hydraulic jumps. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 46(1): 35-44.

2.       Madsen PA, Simonsen HJ, Pan CH. 2005. Numerical simulation of tidal bores and hydraulic jumps. Coastal Engineering. 52(5): 409-33.

3.       Koch C, Chanson H. 2008. Turbulent mixing beneath an undular bore front. Journal of Coastal Research. 999-1007.

4.       Tan L, Chu VH. 2009. Lauber and Hager's dam-break wave data for numerical model validation. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 47(4): 524-8.

5.       Koch C, Chanson H. 2009. Turbulence measurements in positive surges and bores. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 47(1): 29-40.

6.       Furuyama SI, Chanson H. 2010. A numerical simulation of a tidal bore flow. Coastal Engineering Journal. 52(3): 215-34.

7.       Lubin P, Glockner S, Chanson H. 2010. Numerical simulation of a weak breaking tidal bore. Mechanics Research Communications. 37(1): 119-21.

8.       Chanson H. 2011. Turbulent shear stresses in hydraulic jumps, bores and decelerating surges. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 36(2): 180-9.

9.       Chanson H. 2012. Momentum considerations in hydraulic jumps and bores. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 138(4): 382-5.

10.   Simon B, Lubin P, Glockner S, Chanson H. 2011. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of the hydrodynamics generated by a weak breaking tidal bore. In Proceedings of the 34th World Congress of the International Association for Hydro-Environment Research and Engineering: 33rd Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium and 10th Conference on Hydraulics in Water Engineering. Engineers Australia.

11.   Chanson H, Docherty NJ. 2012. Turbulent velocity measurements in open channel bores. European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids. 32:52-8.

12.   Yeow SC, Chanson H, Wang H. 2016. Impact of a large cylindrical roughness on tidal bore propagation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 43(8): 724-34.

13.   Zheng F, Li Y, Xuan G, Li Z, Zhu L. 2018. Characteristics of Positive Surges in a Rectangular Channel. Water. 10(10): 1473-1485.

14.   Hager WH, Castro-Orgaz O. 2019. On the undular hydraulic jump and the undular surge. In E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress. International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, Panama, USA.

15.   Lin C, Kao MJ, Yuan JM, Raikar RV, Hsieh SC, Chuang PY, Syu JM, Pan WC. 2020. Similarities in the free-surface elevations and horizontal velocities of undular bores propagating over a horizontal bed. Physics of Fluids. 32(6): 063605.

16.   Bjørnestad M, Kalisch H, Abid M, Kharif C, Brun M. 2021. Wave Breaking in Undular Bores with Shear Flows. Water Waves: 1-18.

17.   Chiew YM, Melville BW. 1996. Temporal development of local scour depth at bridge piers. North American Water and Environment Congress, ASCE, California, USA.

18.   Raudkivi AJ, Ettema R. 1983. Clear-water scour at cylindrical piers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 109(3): 338-350.

19.   Oveici E, Tayari O, Jalalkamali N. 2020. Experimental (ADV & PIV) and numerical (CFD) comparisons of 3D flow pattern around intact and damaged bridge piers. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology. 28:523-544.

20.   Nortek AS. 2009. Vectrino velocimeter user guide. Nortek AS, Vangkroken, Norway.

21.   Akbari M, Vaghefi M, Chiew YM. 2021. Effect of T-shaped spur dike length on mean flow characteristics along a 180-degree sharp bend. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics. 69(1):98-107.

22.   Akbari M, Vaghefi M. 2017. Experimental investigation on streamlines in a 180º sharp bend. Acta Scientiarum Technology. 39(4): 425-432.

23.   Hurther D, Lemmin U. 2001. A correction method for turbulence measurements with a 3D acoustic Doppler velocity profiler. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 18(3):446-458.

24.   Voulgaris G, Trowbridge JH 1998. Evaluation of the acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) for turbulence measurements. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 15(1): 272-289.

25.   Raffel M, Willert CE, Scarano F, Kähler CJ, Wereley ST, Kompenhans J. 2018. Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide. Springer.

26.   Thielicke W, Stamhuis EJ. 2014. PIVlab-towards user-friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in MATLAB. Journal of Open Research Software. 2(1): 1-30.

27.   Oveici E, Tayari O, Jalalkamali N. 2021. Flow Pattern in a Sloped Channel with Damaged and Undamaged Bridge Piers: Numerical and Experimental Studies. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 25: 4240-4251.

28. Vaghefi M, Akbari M, Fiouz AR. 2016. An experimental study of mean and turbulent flow in a 180 degree sharp open channel bend: Secondary flow and bed shear stress. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 20(4): 1582-1593.