![]() ![]() ![]() The authors then substituted p ffiffiffiffiffiffi the measured flow parameters, U 1 1⁄4 0, U 2 1⁄4 0. This exploration concluded that the pair of continuity and energy equation better replicates experimental data. 1 to calculate flow velocities on the either side of the depressurization front. 5 D, the authors apply three different pairs of the basic equations (momentum and continuity, energy and continuity, and energy and momentum) between the Sections 1 0 and 2 shown in Fig. By postulating that the flow depth in the open channel flow is equal to 0. Bearing in mind that this part of Benjamin ’ s approach is in- accurate, the authors sought to better mimic the physics of the problem. The velocity p ffiffiffiffiffiffi can be thus calculated as V 2 1⁄4 2 g ð D − 0. 563 can be independently verified through calculating the flow velocity in the open channel section by considering that in Benjamin ’ s formulation the velocity head is exactly equal to the distance between the water surface and the p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pipe roof. Fortunately, this typo did not affect other parts of Benjamin ’ s paper, so the velocities of the flow on the either side of the depressurization front are correctly calculated in the paper. What the discussers believe led the authors to wrongly calculate y 2 = D is perhaps due to utilizing the value of ξ, which is erroneously reported in the Benjamin ’ s paper as 0.5978. Using the now known A 2 value, one calculates y 2 = D as 0.563. °, the magnitude of and 2 are calculated as 0.4202 and 0.5798, respectively. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |