Abstract

With regard to high water head and large flow velocity in the spillway tunnels of hydraulic projects in China, the aerator device has been introduced and is widely used to prevent cavitation damage. The bottom rollers in the nappe cavity below the aerator device are a serious concern in designing suitable cavity regimes; however, observation of roller size may be inaccurate due to high flow turbulence and de-aeration in the jet impact region. In this study, a novel approach is proposed to predict roller sizes using pressure distribution of the bottom rollers. Pressure distribution characteristics are experimentally investigated under different geometrical parameters of aerator device and hydraulic conditions. The results specify the influence of the relative step height and working gate opening on pressure distribution. The simplified estimating formula of pressure distribution is derived within relative errors of 15%. The evaluation of the applicability of the proposed equation shows test data are in good agreement with the calculated value. Research results provide a reference for estimating bottom rollers of similar engineering.

NOTATION

     
  • e

    Arch-gate opening

  •  
  • ho

    Pressure flow depth

  •  
  • he

    Flow depth at the outlet of arch-gate

  •  
  • HP

    Normalized pressure

  •  
  • vo

    Approach flow velocity

  •  
  • p

    Pressure of bottom rollers

  •  
  • XP

    Normalized location

  •  
  • ts

    Drop-step height of the aerator device

  •  
  • Ts

    Relative drop-step height

  •  
  • φ

    The bottom slope to the horizontal plane

  •  
  • ρ

    Fluid density

INTRODUCTION

Aeration is widely applied in sewage sludge treatment in ships (Zhu et al. 2016) and deep-shaft systems (Xiong et al. 2016), contaminant removal for constructed wetlands (Auvinen et al. 2017; Masi et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2017), hydraulic efficiency improvement in hydraulic turbines (Bunea et al. 2017) and cavitation erosion prevention in spillway tunnels of large-scale hydropower projects with high heads (Liu et al. 2011; Li et al. 2016a, 2016b; Wang et al. 2018a, 2018b). It has been evident that cavitation erosion could be substantially reduced when an air concentration of 1.5–2.5% is provided in the flow on the surface of the materials (Russell & Sheehan 1974; Wu et al. 2017). In the applications of air-entrainment technology, many kinds of aerators have been developed (Ruan et al. 2007). For aeration cavities below aerator devices in a tunnel, previous studies (Chanson 1989a, 1989b; Rutschmann & Hager 1990; Pfister 2011) declared that air entrainment discharge is an important parameter influencing air concentration; therefore, favorable cavity regimes were the main considerations in aeration situations (Guenther et al. 2013; Felder & Chanson 2014). However, severe bottom rollers in the ventilated cavity may worsen cavity regimes, cease to protect the chute surface and even act potentially as a source of cavitation erosion (Chanson 1990; Qian et al. 2016). Accordingly, large numbers of relevant literatures have been conducted to improve cavity regimes, including restraining bottom rollers (Wang et al. 2005; Su et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2011), increasing cavity length (Qi et al. 2007; Wu & Ruan 2008; Ma et al. 2010) and optimizing the jet impact angle (Pfister 2012) on the chute downstream of the aerator device.

It is universally known that the appearance of the bottom rollers will greatly decrease the efficiency of air entrainment, and the net cavity length becomes the key factor dominating the air discharge in the flow. Accordingly, it is essential to predict and observe the bottom roller sizes. To date, Chanson (1995), Yang et al. (2000) and Wu et al. (2013) selected different control volumes to examine the calculation of bottom rollers based on the jet trajectory equation and the momentum equation. In highly turbulent water flows, air is entrained by the high-intensity turbulent eddies' proximity to the air-water interfaces (Wei et al. 2016; Valero & Bung 2018), and nappe entrainment develops on both the lower and upper jet free surfaces (Valero & Bung 2016). Moreover, in the vicinity of the cavity the rollers entrain additional quantity of air plunging jet entrainment, and the cavity boundaries are indeterminable visually as high flow turbulence and rapid redistributions of air concentration occur in the impact region. Hence, in prototype observation or physical model tests, it is anticipated potentially that the direct observation of the bottom rollers perhaps remains inaccurate due to visual error. Here, the studies on dynamic pressure head distribution of the bottom rollers may be a better approach to estimate roller characteristics and cavity regimes.

Typically, at the end of the nappe, flow is subject to a rapid change of pressure distribution from a minimum pressure gradient to a maximum pressure gradient at the impact point (Chanson 1989a, 1989b). Bottom roller sizes could be reflected and calculated by dynamic pressure head in the cavity submerged region upstream of the impact point. Nevertheless, for spillway tunnels, the existing literature has followed with interest in pressure distribution on aerator devices (Steiner et al. 2008; Yamini et al. 2015) and sidewalls (Zhang et al. 2011; Li et al. 2016a, 2016b). Little literature has addressed pressure head characteristics of the bottom rollers in a single investigation except for Shi et al. (1983), who issued the pressure distribution function in close proximity to the nappe impact point to analyze maximum pressure. In fact, the pressure distribution of the bottom rollers is affected by many factors, to which careful attention should be paid, according to the performance of the flow. For the aerator on the bottom of the different release structures, different hydraulic characteristics are shown. To the authors' knowledge, so far no study has ever systematically assessed the influence of the geometrical parameters of the aerator device and hydraulic conditions on pressure distribution.

The object of the present research is a flood-spillway tunnel in the Nuozhadu Hydropower Project (Yunnan Province, China). This paper is to experimentally observe and discuss the dynamic pressure distribution of the bottom rollers, as well as the effect of geometric and hydraulic parameters on pressure distribution. Meanwhile, the estimating formula of pressure distribution is presented, and its application is checked by the comparison of the test values in the previous literatures with the calculated values.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION

According to the experimental observations, the definition sketch of the aerator device can be described by Figure 1, in which the geometric parameters contain ts as the drop-step height of the aerator device and φ as the bottom slope to the horizontal plane. Flow upstream of the arch-gate is pressure flow. The hydraulic parameters are ho, he and vo as pressure flow depth, flow depth at the outlet of arch-gate, and approach flow velocity, respectively.

Figure 1

Definition sketch with the aerator device.

Figure 1

Definition sketch with the aerator device.

Generally, the main parameters influencing bottom pressure are as follows: (1) geometric parameters: ts and φ; (2) hydraulic parameters: ho, he, vo; and (3) fluid physical properties: fluid density ρ. Hence, the pressure p could be expressed as  
formula
(1)
For a given bottom aerator device, φ is a constant value. Select ho, ρ and vo representing L, M, and T as the independent basic dimensionless quantities, and  
formula
 
formula
(2)
Equation (1) could be rewritten in a dimensionless variable as  
formula
(3)

Note the opening of arch-gate e = he/ho; moreover, Ts = ts/ho can be defined as relative drop-step height. Furthermore, ρ is unchanged as the test fluid is water, and the energy equation of flow shows the degrees of the arch-gate opening can dominate approach flow velocity vo. Consequently, dimensionless analysis addressing bottom pressure is mainly affected by the relative drop-step height and arch-gate opening.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY

Nuozhadu Dam's discharge tunnel model was designed at a scale of 1/40 based upon the Froude similitude in the High-speed Flow Laboratory of Hohai University (Nanjing, China). The experimental setup consists of a pump, an approach conduit, a large feeding basin with a maximum discharge Q= 400 l/s, a model of the spillway tunnel with an aerator device and a flow return system with a discharge measured weir instrument. The physical model of the spillway tunnel, made of Perspex, is shown in Figure 2. The size of the chute with pressure flow before the gate chamber is 13.59 × 0.125 × 0.3 m (length × width × height). The length and slope of the pressure tunnel are 15 m and 2.68o respectively. Spillway arch-gates are effectively used on the spillway tunnels of various projects due to favorable operating and flow characteristics (Kazemzadeh-Parsi 2014). Furthermore, the degrees of sluice gate opening could control hydraulic and air-entrainment characteristics of the approach flow (Abdolahpour & Roshan 2014; Wu et al. 2015). Therefore, the arch working gate is set at the outlet of the gate chamber and the following drop-step aerator is installed as an aeration facility. The tested spillway tunnel downstream of the drop-step aerator has a slope of 11.31o and width of 0.205 m. Thirty-five time-average pressure gauging points are placed on the chute bottom with a 5 cm spacing along the flow direction for measurement of pressure. Water level, measured using pointer gauges of 0.1 mm minimum count, is 2.50 m, corresponding to the range of the experimental Froude numbers of 1.89–3.33.

Figure 2

The experimental model of the aerator device.

Figure 2

The experimental model of the aerator device.

Pressure distribution of the bottom rollers below the aerator device was investigated under seven cases (Table 1) consisting of four drop-step heights and four degrees of sluice gate opening. Four drop-step heights of aerator devices varied from dimensionless value Ts = 0.067, 0.083, 0.100 and 0.125, corresponding to ts = 2.00 cm, 2.50 cm, 3.00 cm and 3.75 cm (ho = 30.00 cm is the pressure flow depth), respectively. Second, the effect of sluice gate opening was studied, as the effect of hydraulic parameters upon pressure distribution of bottom rollers at e = 1.00, 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 with the same Ts = 0.125.

Table 1

Geometry and hydraulic parameters

Cases name Ts e Symbol 
M1 0.067 1.00 ◆ 
M2 0.083 1.00 ● 
M3 0.100 1.00 □ 
M4 0.125 1.00 △ 
M5 0.125 0.75 ▪ 
M6 0.125 0.50 × 
M7 0.125 0.25 – 
Cases name Ts e Symbol 
M1 0.067 1.00 ◆ 
M2 0.083 1.00 ● 
M3 0.100 1.00 □ 
M4 0.125 1.00 △ 
M5 0.125 0.75 ▪ 
M6 0.125 0.50 × 
M7 0.125 0.25 – 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Normalization

Figure 3 depicts the sketch of a streamwise section along the chute with pressure distribution (rotating the model presented in Figure 2 by 11.31 degrees counterclockwise), and plots the pressure head line (hP=p/ρg, where g is an acceleration of gravity). The origin of the coordinate system (x, y) is at the chute bottom below the drop-step. The nappe, flowing into the chute bottom downstream through the aeration step, results in the maximum pressure head value (hPM) at the corresponding position (xPM) in the vicinity of the nappe impact point and finally to the hydrostatic pressure gradually far downstream. In a cavity formed below the nappe, the bottom pressure rises from the inception point of the bottom rollers to the maximum value. In fact, a sub-pressure beneath the nappe is produced by which air is entrained into the flow; here, we only discuss pressure distribution in the submerged region rather than the air-exposed region in the cavity.

Figure 3

Streamwise section along chute with pressure distribution.

Figure 3

Streamwise section along chute with pressure distribution.

Pressure distribution characteristics of the roller are typically represented as the dynamic pressure head value versus corresponding positions. However, intercomparison of several cases under different geometry and hydraulic conditions remains ambiguous as variations of the position of the nappe impact point occur. Here, a different approach is adopted using the maximum pressure head characteristics. For the pressure head value at any position (xP) of the bottom inside the cavity, the normalized pressure HP can be defined as:  
formula
(4)
at  
formula
(5)

Consequently, the normalized pressure starts at XP = HP = 0; that is, at the origin of the coordinate system. The maximum value xPM and hPM are located at XP = HP = 1.

Pressure distribution

Figure 4 displays the variation of normalized pressure HP against normalized location XP. It could be noticed that the data present an approximate inception point of XP = 0.55 for all seven cases; that is to say, the bottom rollers start close to the center of the cavities. Subsequently, the pressure rises rapidly in the range of XP = 0.55–1.0 due to the increasing depth of the bottom rollers and the superposition of nappe and rollers.

Figure 4

Variation of HP against XP for all seven cases.

Figure 4

Variation of HP against XP for all seven cases.

However, the rising slope of data for different cases demonstrates a significant difference. On the basis of the relationship between HP and XP in Figure 4, let  
formula
(6)
where n is an index and depends on the geometric parameters of the aerator device and the hydraulic parameters of the flow. On the basis of Equation (3), we have  
formula
(7)

To separately maintain the analysis of Ts and e effect upon n, we present the variations of HP against XP for different Ts and e at XP ≥ 0.55, as shown in Figure 5(a) and 5(b), respectively. Based on Figure 5, the values of n are 6.036, 5.267, 4.451, 3.250, 3.851, 4.415 and 5.052, corresponding to M1-M7, respectively.

Figure 5

Variation of HP against XP for different (a) Ts, (b) e.

Figure 5

Variation of HP against XP for different (a) Ts, (b) e.

Clearly, n increases with the decreasing Ts or e in the range of the present investigation. It is presumed that this phenomenon depends on bottom roller characteristics in response to jet trajectories described with based point-mass parabola versus the take-off conditions. It is well-known that bottom rollers are associated with the impact angle of the lower trajectory of the jet to the bottom, and the roller intensifies with the increase in impact angle (Pfister & Hager 2010a, 2010b). Theoretical analysis of free projectile indicates that the step height increment produces a larger impact angle, while small e implies a large Froude number, which subsequently reduces the impact angle (Qian et al. 2014). Hence from the bottom roller analysis standpoint, the decrease of Ts or e contributes to larger n by reducing the jet impact angle in the cavity, and results in relatively small values of the bottom pressure at identical XP.

On the basis of Equations (5) and (6), HP may be expressed as independent functions g1(Ts) and g2(e), accounting for the main parameters of the present study as  
formula
(8)
Here, let  
formula
(9)
where A, B, and C are three coefficients that depend on pressure distribution. By means of the multiple linear regression method and based on the experimental data, the following relationship for pressure distribution can be derived as Equation (10) in the present study, shown in Figure 6 (R2 = 0.989):  
formula
(10)
Figure 6

Relationships between HP and XP−46.461Ts−2.403e+11.659.

Figure 6

Relationships between HP and XP−46.461Ts−2.403e+11.659.

The empirical relationship of Equation (10), valid for 0.067 ≤ Ts ≤ 0.125, 0.25 ≤ e ≤ 1.00, shows that normalized pressure head HP negatively correlates with the relative step height and arch-gate opening for identical XP. In fact, the higher pressure means larger submerged depth in the cavity; therefore, Equation (10) could predict the cavity length and inception point of the bottom rollers on the basis of pressure distribution regardless of visual error, and thus better estimate cavity regimes.

Figure 7 gives the comparisons between calculated (subscript cal), and experimental (subscript exp) normalized dynamic pressure head under different factors. HPcal is obtained based on Equation (10); both Ts and e could be obtained by means of Table 1; the dotted lines indicate the range of the relative error (Err) of 15% on the basis of  
formula
(11)
Figure 7

Comparisons between HPexp and HPcal for Equation (10).

Figure 7

Comparisons between HPexp and HPcal for Equation (10).

Note that no data scatter more than 15% on basis of Equation (10) and the maximum value of the relative error is 14.2%. The accuracy of Equation (10) considering geometrical and hydraulic characteristics of the pressure distribution of the bottom rollers is believed to be acceptable in conjunction with the current experimental uncertainty.

Comparison with previous results

To evaluate the applicability of the proposed equation, three representative examples are chosen, and their experimental or numerical results available in the literature are compared with the calculated results using Equation (10). On the basis of the experimental time-average pressure value along the center of the chute bottom, Li et al. (2016a) discussed pressure distribution for three bottom aerators without and with the lateral aerator, according to a tunnel with free flow in a practical project with the high dam. However, we have only compared the 2# aerator depicted in Figure 8(a), as Ts and e of this aerator agree with the scope of Equation (7). Shilpakar et al. (2017) numerically simulated pressure distribution on the spillway tunnel of the Jinping-I Hydropower Project for four aerators with a fully arch-gate opening, and the comparison between the simulated value and the calculated value is shown in Figure 8(b) for 1#, 2# and 4# drop-step aerator which are in the scope of Equation (10). Ma et al. (2014) experimentally and numerically investigated pressure distribution of the chute bottom for a certain drop-step aerator in the arch-gate closing process; herein, we selected e = 3/4, 2/3 and 1/2 to calculate the normalized pressure head, as shown in Figure 8(c). From Figure 8(a)8(c), it can be seen that the calculated results obtained on the basis of Equation (10) are in good accord with those obtained from the previous model tests and numerical simulations.

Figure 8

Comparisons of results proposed by previous researchers with the calculated value of Equation (9).

Figure 8

Comparisons of results proposed by previous researchers with the calculated value of Equation (9).

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to the potential visual error of observing the bottom rollers below the aerator device, a new methodology of predicting bottom roller sizes using pressure distribution is introduced.

The performance of pressure distribution under different geometrical parameters of aerator device and hydraulic parameters shows that the bottom rollers start closely at the center of the cavity, according to the inception point of the dynamic pressure head at the relative position XP = 0.55, and the decrease of relative step heights or arch-gate opening generates small values of normalized pressure at an identical normalized position in the scope of current issues.

The new prediction of pressure distribution on the basis of relative step heights and the arch-gate opening is provided. Comparison with our experimental data demonstrates that the maximum relative error of the present estimating equation is 14.2%. Moreover, comparisons of test results presented in the previous literatures with values calculated by Equation (10) demonstrate the good applicability of the new equation for estimating pressure distribution.

The limitation of this methodology mainly depends on the specific geometry of the physical model and the proposed prediction is valid for 0.067 ≤ Ts ≤ 0.125, 0.25 ≤ e ≤ 1.00.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research presented herein is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51579076, 51779081), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2017B618X14), and Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX17_0425).

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Abdolahpour
M.
&
Roshan
R.
2014
Flow aeration after gate in bottom outlet tunnels
.
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
39
,
3441
3448
.
Bunea
F.
,
Ciocan
G. D.
,
Nedelcu
A.
,
Bucur
D. M.
,
Dunca
G.
&
Chihaia
R.
2017
Experimental setup for the study of new aeration devices in hydraulic turbines
.
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal
16
(
5
),
1033
1040
.
Chanson
H.
1989a
Flow downstream of an aerator–aerator spacing
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
27
(
4
),
519
536
.
Chanson
H.
1989b
Study of air entrainment and aeration devices
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
27
(
3
),
301
319
.
Chanson
H.
1990
Study of air demand on spillway aerator
.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
112
(
3
),
343
350
.
Chanson
H.
1995
Predicting the filling of ventilated cavities behind spillway aerators
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
33
(
3
),
361
372
.
Guenther
P.
,
Felder
S.
&
Chanson
H.
2013
Flow aeration, cavity processes and energy dissipation on flat and pooled stepped spillways for embankments
.
Environmental Fluid Mechanics
13
(
5
),
503
525
.
Li
S.
,
Zhang
J. M.
,
Xu
W. L.
,
Chen
J. G.
,
Peng
Y.
,
Li
J. N.
&
He
X. L.
2016a
Simulation and experiments of aerated flow in curve-connective tunnel with high head and large discharge
.
International Journal of Civil Engineering
14
(
1
),
23
33
.
Li
S.
,
Zhang
J. M.
,
Xu
W. L.
,
Chen
J. G.
&
Peng
Y.
2016b
Evolution of pressure and cavitation on side walls affected by lateral divergence angle and opening of arch gate
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
142
(
7
),
05016003
.
Liu
Z. P.
,
Zhang
D.
,
Zhang
H. W.
&
Wu
Y. H.
2011
Hydraulic characteristics of converse curvature section and aerator in high-head and large discharge spillway tunnel
.
Science China Technological Sciences
54
(
S1
),
33
39
.
Ma
X. D.
,
Yang
Q.
,
Nie
R. H.
&
Liu
X. N.
2014
Study on flow characteristics of spillway tunnel downstream of middle-gate chamber in the steel arch-gate closing process
.
Journal of Sichuan University (Engineering Science Edition)
46
(
2
),
1
7
.
Masi
F.
,
Rizzo
A.
,
Martinuzzi
N.
,
Wallace
S. D.
,
Van Oirschot
D.
,
Salazzari
P.
,
Meers
E.
&
Bresciani
R.
2017
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket and aerated constructed wetlands for swine wastewater treatment: a pilot study
.
Water Science and Technology
76
(
1
),
68
78
.
Pfister
M.
2011
Chute aerators: steep deflectors and cavity subpressure
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
137
(
10
),
1208
1215
.
Pfister
M.
2012
Jet impact angle on chute downstream of aerator
. In:
4th IAHR International Symposium on Hydraulic Structures
,
Porto, Portugal
.
Pfister
M.
&
Hager
W. H.
2010a
Chute aerators I: air transport characteristics
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
136
(
6
),
352
359
.
Pfister
M.
&
Hager
W. H.
2010b
Chute aerators II: hydraulic design
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
136
(
6
),
360
367
.
Qi
L. J.
,
Liao
H. S.
,
Li
G. J.
&
Zhang
J. M.
2007
Numerical simulation of backwater downstream of aerators in spillway with low Froude number flow
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
38
(
7
),
819
825
.
Qian
S. T.
,
Wu
J. H.
,
Ma
F.
,
Xu
J. R.
,
Peng
Y.
&
Wang
Z.
2014
Cavity filling water control below aeration devices
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
26
(
3
),
424
430
.
Qian
S. T.
,
Wu
J. H.
&
Ma
F.
2016
Hydraulic performance of ski-jump-step energy dissipater
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
142
(
10
),
05016004
.
Ruan
S. P.
,
Wu
J. H.
&
Wu
W. W.
2007
Hydraulic research of aerators on tunnel spillways
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
193
(
3
),
330
334
.
Russell
S. O.
&
Sheehan
G. J.
1974
Effect of entrained air on cavitation damage
.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
1
(
1
),
97
107
.
Rutschmann
P.
&
Hager
W. H.
1990
Air entrainment by spillway aerators
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
116
(
6
),
765
782
.
Shi
Q. S.
,
Pan
S. B.
,
Shao
Y. Y.
&
Yuan
X. Y.
1983
Experimental investigation of flow aeration to prevent cavitation erosion by a deflector
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
14
(
3
),
1
13
.
Shilpakar
R.
,
Hua
Z.
,
Manandhar
B.
,
Shrestha
N.
,
Zafar
M. R.
,
Iqbal
T.
&
Hussain
Z.
2017
Numerical simulation on tunnel spillway of Jingping-I hydropower project with four aerators
.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
82
,
012013
.
Steiner
R.
,
Heller
V.
,
Hager
W. H.
&
Minor
H. E.
2008
Deflector ski jump hydraulics
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
134
(
5
),
562
571
.
Su
P. L.
,
Liao
H. S.
,
Qiu
Y.
&
Li
C. J.
2009
Experimental study on a new type of aerator in spillway with low Froude number and mild slope flow
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
21
(
3
),
415
422
.
Wang
H. Y.
,
Dai
G. Q.
,
Yang
Q.
&
Liu
C.
2005
Experimental study on V-type aerator for spillway tunnel with inlet raised
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
36
(
11
),
1371
1378
.
Wang
Y.
,
Wu
J. H.
&
Ma
F.
2018b
Cavitation–silt erosion in sand suspensions
.
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology
32
(
12
),
5697
5702
.
Wei
W. R.
,
Deng
J.
&
Zhang
F. X.
2016
Development of self-aeration process for supercritical chute flows
.
International Journal of Multiphase Flow
79
,
172
180
.
Wu
J. H.
&
Ruan
S. P.
2008
Cavity length below chute aerators
.
Science China Technological Sciences
51
(
2
),
170
178
.
Wu
J. H.
,
Ma
F.
&
Dai
H. C.
2011
Influence of filling water on air concentration
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
23
(
5
),
601
606
.
Wu
J. H.
,
Ma
F.
&
Xu
W. L.
2013
Bottom roller characteristics in cavity of chute aerators
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
51
(
3
),
317
321
.
Wu
J. H.
,
Wan
B.
,
Ma
F.
&
Li
T. C.
2015
Flow choking characteristics of slit-type energy dissipaters
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
27
(
1
),
159
162
.
Wu
J. H.
,
Su
K. P.
,
Wang
Y.
&
Gou
W. J.
2017
Effect of air bubble size on cavitation erosion reduction
.
Science China Technological Sciences
60
(
4
),
523
528
.
Xiong
J. Q.
,
Wang
X. C. C.
,
Shu
W.
,
He
T.
&
Liu
Y. Z.
2016
Municipal sludge characteristic changes under different aerating condition in a deep-shaft aeration system
.
Water Science and Technology
73
(
7
),
1493
1499
.
Yamini
O. A.
,
Kavianpour
M. R.
&
Movahedi
A.
2015
Pressure distribution on the bed of the compound flip buckets
.
Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows
7
(
3
),
181
194
.
Yang
Y. S.
,
Yang
Y. Q.
&
Shuai
Q. H.
2000
The hydraulic and aeration characteristics of low Froude number flow over a step aerator
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
31
(
2
),
27
31
.
Zhang
J. M.
,
Chen
J. G.
,
Xu
W. L.
,
Wang
Y. R.
&
Li
G. J.
2011
Three-dimensional numerical simulation of aerated flows downstream sudden fall aerator expansion-in a tunnel
.
Journal of Hydrodynamics
23
(
1
),
71
80
.