5th International Symposium on Hydraulic Structures

Hydraulic Structures and Society: Engineering Challenges and Extremes

ISBN 9781742721156 - DOI: 10.14264/uql.2014.14

Brisbane, Australia, 25-27 June 2014

Hydraulic Jump Characteristics in Non-Prismatic Channels

1

S. Gandhi1 and R.P. Singh2

Department of Civil Engineering,

Jaypee University of Engineering & Technology, Guna (MP),
INDIA
2
Department of Civil Engineering,
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (UP),
INDIA
E-mail: sumit_gandhi2001@yahoo.co.in
Abstract: Empirical relations for hydraulic jump characteristics, viz. sequent depth ratio (Y2/Y1), efficiency
of jump (E2/E1) and relative length of jump (Lj/Y1) in non-prismatic channel (i.e., suddenly expanding)
with/without appurtenances are developed by introducing dimensionless Reynolds number, and
neglecting the frictional effect for approach Froude numbers between 2 to 9 under different channel
conditions. Developed empirical models were also tested, validated and compared with acquired
experimental data as well as with literature data. Close fitness of the empirical models with appurtenances
under varying dimensions, positions of baffle blocks and end sill provides accurate prediction of same for
higher value of Froude number.
Keywords: Non-prismatic channel, hydraulic jump characteristics, Reynolds number, baffles & sill.

1. INTRODUCTION
In stilling basin when supercritical flow changes to subcritical flow during hydraulic jump occurrence, air is
entrained and gets released in the form of air bubbles. Therefore, it is of considerable importance in many
practical problems to control high energy turbulent flow. Compared to prismatic channels non-prismatic
channels (suddenly expanding) with appurtenances not only modify the hydraulic jump characteristics but
also effect significantly the formation of symmetric flows downstream of the channel. Also, non-prismatic
channels are useful where there are design constraints to reduce basin length.
A significant work has been reported by Chanson (1996), Chanson and Montes (1998), Chanson (2000),
Ranga Raju et al. (1980), Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006) on appurtenances and energy loss in the study
of hydraulic jump. Rajaratnam (1964) and Tyagi et al. (1978) have studied the effect of the force on baffle
blocks and sill in suddenly expanding channel. Rajaratnam and Subramanyam (1968), Negm et al. (2000)
and Negm (2000) proved that the sequent depth ratio is a function of approach Froude number and
expansion ratio only. There are some studies on hydraulic jump characteristics indicates that hydraulic
jump characteristics are dependent on Froude number only [Elevatorski (2008), Wu and Rajaratnam
(1996), Ranga Raju et al (1980), etc]. However, [Iwao et al. (2003) and Afzal and Bushra (2002)] have
shown that Reynolds number also has significant effect on the modification of hydraulic jump
characteristics.
Keeping above fact in view, the present study is oriented towards the development of data based
empirical models for different hydraulic jump characteristics for non-prismatic channel by introducing
Reynolds number Re1.

2. BACKGROUND: LITERATURE REVIEW

Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1968) suggested the use of the empirical equations for sequent depth ratio
in suddenly expanding channel which is valid for B1/B2 ratio in the range 0.3 to 0.9 and approach Froude
number Fr1 between 2 and 9 as:

Y2
Fr1 0.85
0.3 0.75
Y1
B1

B2

(1)

Herbrand (1973) proposed expressions for sequent depth ratio by neglecting frictional effects and
assuming that the channel bottom is horizontal:
Y2

Y1

2
B
Fr1 1
B2
2 B2
B1

(2)

Negm (2000) proposed an expression for the relative length of jump/roller for 2 Fr1 8.5, 0.33 B1 0.83
and 2.4 B1/Y1 13.76 based on the experimental results of Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1968). Length
of roller and length of jump is correlated as Lj/Lr = 1.3.

Lr
B
B
8.594 9.33 1 3.159 Fr1 0.141 1
Y1
B2
Y1

(3)

Chow (1959) produced analytical equations for jump efficiency (relative height of jump) which is
reproduced below:

1.5

1 8Fr21 4 Fr1 1
E2

E1
8Fr21 2 Fr21

(4)

Peterka (1958), based on the experimental study, proposed the relation for relative length of jump and
relative energy loss as:

eZ e Z
220 z
Z
Y1
e e

Lj

Y2
Fr21

2
2
Y1
B Y
2 2 2
EL
B1 Y1 1 E2 ,
1
F2
E1
E1
1 r1
2

here z Fr1 1
22

(5)

Elevatorski (1959) defined the relative length of the jump Lj/Y2 as a function of Fr1 and stated that it
becomes constant at the value of Fr1 > 5, i.e.,

L j 6 .9 Y2 Y1

(6)

Ivanchenkov (1936) plotted Lj/hj against Fr1 using Bahkmeteffs experimental data and developed an
empirical equation as

Lj
Y2

Y1

1
B2

B1

10.6h j

(7)

Fr0.37
1

1
2
; EL
2 Fr1 0.5
1
E1
Fr1
B2

B
1

(8)

Empirical relation for Y2/Y1 by Herbrand (1973) for suddenly expanding channel is found valid for 3.1 < Fr1
< 9.0. Hager (1985) has given the empirical relation for sequent depth ratio and relative energy loss in
terms of approach Froude number and expansion ratio as in Eq (8).

3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND DATA ACQUISITON

Experiments were carried out on suddenly expanding (with & without baffle blocks/sill)] channels. Set-up
consists of a constant head tank of volume 3.6 3.6 3 m3, water reaches to the inlet tank of volume
0.43 0.31 0.80 m3 through the connecting pipe of diameter 10 cm provided with regulating valve.
Upstream face of inlet regulating gate is covered by stilling basin of length 3 m and width 0.3 m to prevent
side wave reflection and surface undulation so that a stabilized flow is available at the inlet of main
channel. Experiments were performed in 2.1 m 0.445 m 1.2 m rectangular channel made up of perspex
sheet. Parallel rails were mounted for sliding of pointer gauge to measure depth at different positions
along the length and across the width of main channel. The arrangements were also made for the
installation and removal of the baffle blocks from the top of the rails.
Fig. 1 shows expanding channel setup providing the approaching channel part of width B1 having length
30 cm and width ratio B1/B2= 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8 (data have been taken for different range of approach
Froude number for each expansion ratios separately). Parameters measured and parameters varied
under each channel conditions are summarised in Table 1. Table 2 shows dimensions of appurtenances
varied under different channel conditions and the range of different hydraulic jump characteristics
calculated are shown in Table 3.
Lbt

Jump

S
B1
Lbt

Y1

Ws

B2

Baffle
Sil

hs
Lbb

Lss

0.3 m

2.8 m

Figure 1 - Formation of hydraulic jump in suddenly expanding channel with appurtenances.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL EQUATION: DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

The important variables affecting the jump pattern and energy dissipation can be expressed as a function:
f (Y1, Y2, V1, V2, Lr, Lj, EL, , g, , ) = 0

(9)

Using Buckinhams -theorem and treating Y1, g and as repeating variables, the various dimensionless
groups are developed. Using linear fitting of the experimental data following empirical model for Y2/Y1,
E2/E1 and Lj/Y1 were developed and expressed below.
Dimensionless groups and hydraulic jump characteristics are the function of expansion ratio, approach
Froude number, incoming Reynolds number and position and dimension of baffle blocks & sill, which can
be represented as:
Y E L j B V 2 V Y x h h L L
f 2 , 2 , , , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , b , b , s , bb , bt 0
Y1 E1 Y1 Y1 B2 gY1 xs nWb Ws Lss S

(10)

The effect of surface roughness is ignored in the present work due to experimental limitations. From the
analysis of experimental results, it is observed that all the three hydraulic jump characteristics namely
Y2/Y1, E2/E1, Lj/Y1 in suddenly expanding channel are function of expanding ratio, approach Froude
number and Reynolds number. The empirical models developed for suddenly expanding channel are:
Fr21
0.5 1.53
Re1
B F 0.3
E2
3.114 1 r01.05 1.3583
E1
B2 Re1

B
Y2
201.24 1
Y1
B2

B F 2
312.81 1 0r1.5 3.6454
Y1
B2 Re1

Lj

(11)

(12)

(13)

(R = 0.9902)
(R = 0.9867)
(R = 0.9916)

The empirical models developed for suddenly expanding channel (with baffle blocks and sill) are:
B F 0.5 x h h L L
2
Y2
2 10 6 1 r1 b b s bb bt 1.4949 (R =0.9890)
Y1
B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S
B F 0.2 x h h L L
2
E2
601531 1 r01.5 b b s bb bt 1.5503 (R = 0.9673)
E1
B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S
B F 0.2 x h h L L
Lj
(R2=0.9698)
4 10 6 1 r01.5 b b s bb bt 43.485
Y1
B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S

(14)

(15)
(16)

5. TESTING, VALIDATION AND COMPARISON OF EMIPIRICAL MODELS

Y2/Y1: Figure 2 shows the comparison of Herbrand (1971) [Eq. (2)], Rajaratnam and Subramanyam
(1968) [Eq. (1)], Hagers (1985) [Eq. (8)], developed model [Eq. (14)] and the experimental data from the
present study for sequent depth ratio (Y2/Y1) against approach Froude number (Fr1) for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5,
0.6 and 0.8. A small deviation between the Herbrand (1971) and the Rajaratnam and Subramanaym
(1968) data when compared with Hager (1985), which may be attributed to the reason that Herbrand
(1971) have considered toe of the jump exactly at the expansion part whereas Rajaratnam and
Subramanyam (1968) considered it in the expanded part of the channel similar as in present study. The
sequent depth ratio Y2/Y1 values from the present model for B1/B2 = 0.4, lies slightly above the Hager
(1985) line which is drawn for B1/B2 = 0.33, shows satisfactory prediction of sequent depth ratio. Figure 2
also reflects the significant effect of Reynolds number when expansion ratios (B1/B2) are higher. For
developing figure 4, Eqs. (14) and (8) and Hager (1985) data for sequent depth ratio were used, present
model [Eq. (14)] is also compared with the Hager (1985) model [Eq. (8)] for different sequent depth ratios.
The results of present model are in close proximity to those predicted by Hager (1985) model, slight
deviations are attributed to the inclusion of Reynolds number in the present model.
E2/E1: Figure 3 shows non-linear variation of efficiency E2/E1 against approach Froude number (Fr1) for
different expansion ratios. For developing figure 3, linear model of Eq. (15) were fit for the present
experimental data and the Hagers (1985) data for testing, R2 value of 0.99, 0.99, 0.98 and 0.98 for B1/B2
= 0.2, 0.5, 1 and 0.33 respectively shows good fitting of Hager (1985) data in presented model. Same
model has been validated with Bremen (1990) data for B1/B2 = 0.2 and 0.5 in figure 5 with R2 value of 0.98
and 0.99 showing good fitting in presented model, however a deviation is observed from the presented
model drawn for B1/B2 = 0.4 and 0.5 with R2 value 0.99 and 0.98 which may be attributed to experimental
conditions like Bremen assumed toe of the jump lying in approaching channel part while in present study
toe is located in the expanded part. Figure 6 shows comparison of E2/E1 of present model Eq. (15) with the
Peterka (1958) model [Eq. (5)] for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8. R2 value close to 1 for present model and
Bremen (1990) model, predicts correctly the value of E2/E1 for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8. It is therefore
concluded that Eq. (15) may be used for the satisfactory prediction of efficiency.

Lj/Y1: Figure 7 shows non-linear variation of relative length of jump (Lj/Y1) against approach Froude
number (Fr1) for different expansion ratios. For developing figure 8, linear model Eq. (16) were fit for the
present experimental data and the Bremen (1990) data for testing with R2 value of 0.99 and 0.99 having
B1/B2 = 0.2 and 0.5. In the same figure model Eq. (16) has also been shown for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6
with R2 value of 0.98, 0.98 and 0.99 respectively, which shows good fitting of experimental data in
developed model [Eq. (16)]. Figure 8 shows validation of Eq. (16) by fitting Hager (1985) data with R2
value 0.8, 0.97, 0.95 and 0.99 for B1/B2 = 0.2, 0.33, 0.5 and 1. However, R2 value for present model are
0.98, 0.98 and 0.99 for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 showing deviation from Hager (1985) result which may be
attributed to the different expansion ratios and Hager (1985) explained & presented the length of jump by
significant scattering of data in the range of 0.17 > B1/B2 > 0.83 and 2 < Fr1 < 9. From the two figures 7
and 8 it is clear that Bremen (1990) and Hager (1985) experimental data fitting well in the present linear
model with good R2 value 0.99 and 0.97. It is concluded that for the present condition Eq. (16) may be
used for approximate estimation of Lj/Y1.

6. CONCLUSION
Testing and validation of empirical models with R2 values presented above for suddenly expanding
channel with baffle blocks and sill shows the feasibility of these models under varying dimension, position,
number of baffle blocks and end sill. It is therefore, recommended that these models may be used for the
prediction of corresponding hydraulic jump characteristics with significant accuracy. It is also been
concluded that after applications of appurtenances in suddenly expanding channel the characteristics are
modified and found suitable for energy dissipation i.e., efficiency of jump increased.

10

Herbrand B 1/B 2 = 0.5

0. 93

Herbrand B 1/B 2 = 0.3

=0
. 95

15

R 2=

Raja & Sub B 1/B 2 = 0.83

B1/B2 = 0.8

B1/B2 = 0.8

Sequent depth ratio Y2/Y1

Herbrand B 1/B 2 = 0.71

65

0.
95
1

B1/B2 = 0.8

Herbrand B 1/B 2 = 1

B1/B2 = 0.8

Raja & Sub B 1/B 2 = 0.67

Raja & Sub B 1/B 2 = 0.5

7
0. 9

57

Raja & Sub B 1/B 2 = 0.33

Hager B 1/B 2 = 1
Hager B 1/B 2 =0.5
Hager B 1/B 2 = 0.33
Hager B 1/B 2 = 0.2

Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.4

Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.5
Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.6
Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.8

B 1/B 2 = 0.4 (M o del)

Approach Froude number Fr1

Linear (M o del Line B 1/B 2 =0.5)

Linear (M o del line B 1/B 2 = 0.6)
Linear (M o del Line B 1/B 2 = 0.8)

Figure 2 - Validation of Eq. (14) for suddenly expanding channel with Hager (1985) data

1.2

Pow er (Present
model B1/B2 = 0.4)

R2 = 0.9104

Efficiency E2/E1

Pow er (Present
model B1/B2 = 0.5)

0.8

Pow er (Present
model B1/B2 = 0.6)
R2 = 0.9961
Pow er (Present
model B1/B2 = 0.8)

R2 = 0.952

R2 = 0.9823

R2 = 0.9856

0.4

Pow er (Hager's
(1985) B1/B2 = 0.2)

R2 = 0.9909
R2 = 0.9967
R = 0.9916
2

0
0

12

Approach Froude number Fr1

Pow er (Hager's
(1985) B1/B2 = 0.5)
Pow er (Hager's
(1985) B1/B2 = 1)
Pow er (Hager's
(1985) B1/B2 = 0.33)

Figure 3 - Testing of model Eq. (15) for suddenly expanding channel with Hager (1985) data
25

Hager's Data B1/B2 =

0.2

R2 = 0.9365

Hager's Data B1/B2 =

0.33

Sequent depth ratio Y 2/Y1

20

Hager's Data B1/B2 =

0.5
15

R2 = 0.9942
R2 = 0.9926
R2 = 0.9512
R2

10

= 0.9878

R2 = 0.9888

Hager's Data B1/B2 = 1

Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =
1)
Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =
0.5)

R2 = 0.9757

Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =

0.33)

Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =

0.2)
0
0

Appraoch Froude num ber Fr1

10

12

Linear (Model B1/B2 =

0.8)
Linear (Model B1/B2
=0.5)
Linear (Model B1/B2 =
0.4)

Figure 4 - Comparison of Eq. (14) with Hager (1985) model [Eq. (8)] and Hager data

0.8

R2 = 0.9849
R2 = 0.9776

Efficiency E2/E1

Efficiency E2/E1

R2 = 0.9847

R2 = 0.9982

0.8
0.6
0.4

R2 = 0.9771

R2 = 0.9921

0.4
R2 = 0.9892

R2 = 0.9961

0.2

0.6

0.2

R2 = 0.9771
R2 = 0.9571

10

Approach Froude number Fr1

10

12

Approach Froude number Fr1

Figure 5 - Validation of Eq. (15) with Bremen

(1990) data

Figure 6 - Comparison of Eq. (15) with Peterka

(1958) model [Eq. (5)]
80

R2 = 0.9938
R2 = 0.9853

60

R2 = 0.9842

40

20
R2 = 0.9987

Relative length of jump Lj/Y1

80

Relative length of jump Lj/Y1

70

R 2 = 0.9938
R2 = 0.9853

60
50

R 2 = 0.9842

40
30

R 2 = 0.9995 R 2 = 0.9535
R 2 = 0.9719

20

R 2 = 0.8001

10

R2 = 0.9954

10

12

Approach Froude number Fr1

Figure 7 - Testing of Eq. (16) with Bremen (1990)

data for relative length of jump

10

12

Approach Froude number Fr1

Figure 8 - Validation of Eq. (16) with Hager (1985)

data for relative length of jump

7. NOTATIONS
B1 and B2
E1 and E2
hb and hs
Lbb and Lbt
Lss
Lj
n
S
Ws and Wb
Y1 and Y2

= approach channel width (m) and expanded channel width (m)

= energy per unit weight before the jump (m) and after the jump (m)
= height of baffle and height of sill (m)
= length of baffle at base (m) and at top (m)
= length of sill (m)
= length of jump (m)
= number of baffle blocks (-)
= spacing between baffle and channel (m)
= width of sill (m) and baffle (m)
= pre-jump depth (m) and post-jump depth (m)
= density of water (Kg/m3)
= dynamic viscosity of water (Ns/m2)

Table 1 Parameters varied in channel

Channel Types
Suddenly expanding channel without baffle & sill
Suddenly expanding channel with baffle block & sill

Measured Parameters
Y1, Y2, Lj, Lr
Y1, Y2, Lj, Lr

Varied Parameters
Fr1
Fr1, B1/B2, hb, Wb, nb, xb

Table 2 Details of the dimensions (in meters) of appurtenances (baffle blocks & sill)
Channel Types/Conditions

Lbt

hb

Wb

Lbb

nb

hs

Ws

Lss

Suddenly expanding channel with 2 baffle blocks & sill for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8
Suddenly expanding channel with 1 baffle blocks & sill for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8

0.01
0.01

0.04
0.05

0.025
0.03

0.04
0.04

2
1

0.02
0.02

0.3
0.3

0.02
0.02

Table 3 Parameters and range of different hydraulic jump characteristics computed from experimental results
Channel Types
Suddenly
expanding
channel

Channel
Conditions
B1/B2 = 0.4
B1/B2 = 0.5
B1/B2 = 0.6
B1/B2 = 0.8

Suddenly
expanding
channel with 1
baffle blocks & sill

Suddenly
expanding
channel with 2
baffle blocks & sill

Y1 (m)
0.0431
0.0271
0.0532
0.0188
0.0322
0.0158
0.0266
0.0121

Y2 (m)
0.0832
0.2096
0.1231
0.1784
0.0699
0.163
0.0672
0.1449
0.1755
0.2361

Lj (m)
0.25 - 1.2
0.42 1.1
0.195 - 1
0.29 0.96

B1/B2 = 0.4

0.061 0.027

B1/B2 = 0.5

0.028 0.019

0.063 0.16

0.22 0.88

B1/B2 = 0.6

0.034 0.016

0.079
0.187

0.28 1.05

B1/B2 = 0.8

0.03 0.012

0.1 0.18

0.4 0.95

B1/B2 = 0.4

0.06 0.027

0.176 0.25

0.69 1.35

B1/B2 = 0.5

0.038 0.028

0.068 0.18

0.19 0.91

B1/B2 = 0.6

0.047 0.024

0.14 0.21

0.54 1.1

B1/B2 = 0.8

0.032 0.019

0.134 0.21

0.62 1.25

0.68 1.3

Q (m /s)
0.00644-0.015
0.0123
0.01203
0.00644
0.01066
0.0063
0.0098
0.0123
0.0137
0.0052
0.011
0.0064
0.011
0.011 0.009
0.0123
0.0137
0.0064
0.0154
0.0123
0.014
0.011
0.0135

Fr1
2-9
2-9
2 - 9.5
2 -10
2 8.5
2-9
2 - 10
3 - 10
2-8
2-7
2-7
3-7

Re1
526457 1232182
801169 786994
350971 581118
258601 401376
10014611121881
336543 705342
350971 594477
450896 401376
1001461
-1121881
421165 1003723
667641 740694
455952 550118

Y2/Y1

E2/E1

Lj/Y1
5.8 44
7.9
58.5

2-8

0.71- 0.19

2-9

0.74 - 0.19

2 - 10

0.79 - 0.23

6.1- 63

3 - 12

0.94 - 0.25

11 - 79

39

0.88 0.25

11 - 48

2-9

0.63 0.21

8 - 47

2 - 12

0.92 0.26

8 - 65

3.25 15

0.75 0.31

13 - 78

3-9

0.87 0.27

11 - 50

2-7

0.7 0.25

5 - 33

3-9

0.9 0.39

12 - 47

4 - 11

0.99 0.44

19 - 66

8. REFERENCES
Afzal. N., Bushra. A. (2002), Structure of Turbulent Hydraulic Jump in a Trapezoidal Channel, Jl of
Hydraulic Research, 40 (2), 205214.
Bremen, R. (1990), Expanding Stilling Basin, Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques, Communication
3, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Chanson, H. (1996), Non-Breaking Undular Hydraulic JumpDiscussion, J. Hydraulic Research, IAHR, 34
(2), 279-287.
Chanson, H. and Montes, J. S. (1998), Characteristics of Undular Hydraulic Jumps: Results and
Calculations, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 124 (2) 192205.
Chanson, H. (2000), Boundary Shear Stress Measurements In Undular flows: Application To Standing
Wave Bed Forms, Water Res. Res., AGU, 36 (10) 30633076.
Chow, V. T. (1959), Open Channel Hydraulic, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
Elevatorski, E. A. (2008), Hydraulic Energy Dissipators, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hager, W. H. (1985), Hydraulic Jump in Non-Prismatic Rectangular Channels, Jl of Hydraulic Research,
23 (1), 2134.
Hager, W. H. (1989), Hydraulic Jump in U-Shaped Channel, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, 115 (5), 667
675.
Hager, W. H. and Wanoschek, R. (1989a), Hydraulic Jump in Triangular Channel, Jl of Hydraulic
Research, 27 (1), 178188.
Hager, W. H., and Bremen, R. (1989b), Classical Hydraulic Jump: Sequent Depths Ratio, Jl of Hydraulic
Research, 27 (5), 565-585.
Herbrand, K. (1973), The Spatial Hydraulic Jump, Jl of Hydraulic Research, 11 (3), 205-217.
Ivanchenkov, A. L. (1936), The Hydraulic Jump in Terms of Dynamic Similarity, Discussion by Bakhmateff,
B.A. and Matzke, A.E., Transactions, ASCE, 101, 668.
Iwao, O., Youich, Y. and Hiroshi, G. (2003), Flow Conditions of Undular Hydraulic Jumps In Horizontal
Rectangular Channels, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 129 (12), 948955.
Negm, A. M. (2000a), Empirical Prediction of Properties of R-Jump and Submerged S-jump in Abruptly
Expanding Stilling Basins, Submitted to The Egyptian Journal for Engineering Sciences and Technology,
(EJEST), Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Negm, A. M. (2000b), Characteristics of Jump in Case of Symmetric and Un-Symmetric Operation of
Regulators, Proc. of ICHE2000, Published on CD, Seoul, Korea, 2629.
Negm, A.M., Ibrahim, A. A., and Salem, M. N. (2000), Modeling of Depth Ratio of Hydraulic Jumps in
Abruptly Enlarged Stilling Basins, Civil Engineering Research Magazine (CERM).
Noor, A and Bushra, A., (2002), Structure of The Turbulent Hydraulic Jump In A Trapezoidal Channel, Jl
of Hydraulic Research, 40 (2), 205214.
Pagliara, S., and Chiavaccini, P. (2006), Energy Dissipation on Block Ramps, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, 132 (1), 4148.
Peterka, A. J. (1958), Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipaters, US Department Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Monograph, 25: Denver, Col.
Rajaratnam, N. (1964), Discussion to Silvester (1964), Jl of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 90 (HY4), 341-350.
Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K. (1968), Hydraulic Jump below Abrupt Symmetrical Expansions, Jl of
Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 94 (HY3), 481503.
Ranga Raju, K. G., Mittal, M. K., Verma, M. S., and Ganeshan, V. R. (1980), Analysis of Flow over Baffle
Blocks and End Sills, Jl of Hydraulic Research, 18 (3), 227241.
Tyagi, D M, Pande, P K and Mittal, M K (1978), Drag on baffle walls in Hydraulic jump, Jl of Hydraulic
Division, ASCE, April, 515525.
Wu, S. and Rajaratnam, N. (1996), Transition from hydraulic jump to open channel flow, Jl of Hydraulic
Engineering, 122 (9), 526528.