Free access
ERRATA
Apr 1, 2007

Errata for “Sedimentation from Buoyant Jets” by Gregory F. Lane-Serff and Terry J. Moran

You are viewing the correction.
VIEW THE CORRECTED ARTICLE
Publication: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 133, Issue 4
Some numerical and other errors have been identified in the paper on sedimentation from buoyant jets. Fortunately, these errors do not have a substantial effect on the model predictions and comparisons with the experiments, but we here give corrected versions of Table 2 and Fig. 9 from that paper, together with an explanation of the errors.
The first error is in calculating the sediment load remaining in the plume when the plume reaches the free surface in the laboratory experiments ( srem in Table 2). The values given in the original paper are the values of the sediment load remaining in the plume after the plume has risen sufficiently far that there is no further deposition. However, in the laboratory experiments, the water depth was often relatively shallow, so that in some cases the plume had not reached this state. The values given for srem were therefore too small; and the values given for the point at which the plume reaches the surface, x , were too large. Correct values are given in the revised version of the table.
Table 2. Revised Theoretical Values Calculated for Each Experiment
  Plume properties at surfaceSpreading current
Experiment wS z x r q srem rS rS+r s0
10.971.962.090.4624.170.8970.9271.3890.364
22.621.912.080.4564.070.2210.5571.0140.123
33.131.361.890.3893.080.1500.4430.8330.102
41.211.501.950.4073.320.7770.7411.1480.382
51.921.912.290.4934.620.3570.6941.1860.170
61.982.141.860.4534.080.5280.6421.0940.272
The second error is in calculating the constant A in Eq. 19 of the paper. Substituting the characteristic scales for the flow into Eq. (18) results in A=2α0.44 . Eq. (19) then becomes
rs=2αqws
(19)
This equation leads to an increase in the value of rs . Changing the values of srem and rs affects the values of s0 in the final column of Table 2, calculated by using Eq. (21); and they are also corrected. The changes in s0 and x cause a change in the theoretical predictions plotted in Fig. 9, and so a revised version of this figure is also given. The effect on the Gaussian distribution of deposition in the gravity current is a decrease in the amplitude and an increase in the spread. The agreement between the theoretical values and the experimental data are slightly decreased for Experiment 6; relatively unchanged for Experiments 2, 3, 4 and 5; and increased for Experiment 1.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the sediment deposition predicted by theory (solid line) and experimental results (symbols)

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 133Issue 4April 2007
Pages: 462

History

Published online: Apr 1, 2007
Published in print: Apr 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Ruth I. Mugford
Research Student, Scott Polar Research Institute, Univ. of Cambridge, Lensfield Rd., Cambridge CB2 1ER, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]
Gregory F. Lane-Serff
Senior Lecturer, School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineering, Univ. of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share