Free access
TECHNICAL PAPERS
Jan 19, 2011

Mixing of a Rosette Jet Group in a Crossflow

Publication: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 137, Issue 8

Abstract

Partially treated wastewater is often discharged into coastal waters through an outfall diffuser fitted with clustered ports on risers. On each riser the effluent is discharged through two to eight ports arranged circumferentially, in the form of a rosette-shaped buoyant jet group. The near field mixing of such a jet group in a tidal flow is determined by the merging and interaction of coflowing, oblique-flowing, cross-flowing, and counterflowing jets. Despite numerous studies, a general predictive method for such complex jet groups has not been reported; ocean outfall design is often based on comprehensive physical model experiments. The mixing of merging nonbuoyant and buoyant jets issuing from a rosette outfall riser into an ambient current is studied experimentally by using the laser-induced fluorescence technique. Detailed cross-sectional measurements of the scalar concentration field downstream of the bent-over jets are made. The trajectories of multiple and individual jets discharging at various angles are measured. For typical outfall designs, the dynamic interaction of adjacent jets is found to be negligible. The average dilution of the jet group can be predicted by accounting for jet merging and plume overlapping. Theoretical predictions using the Lagrangian VISJET model are in excellent agreement with the experimental data and also results of previous studies in a stratified crossflow. The model correctly predicts the changes in near field dilution as a function of the number of nozzles on a riser, or the number of risers on a diffuser, and helps to resolve observed anomalies in previous studies.

Introduction

In many coastal cities, partially treated wastewater is often discharged into the receiving water through submarine outfall diffusers to minimize environmental impact. In modern outfall designs, the wastewater is typically discharged through risers fitted circumferentially with 2–8 horizontal nozzles (Fig. 1). The mixing of this rosette jet group discharge with the ambient flow involves the complicated interaction of coflowing, oblique-flowing, cross-flowing, and counterflowing jets. Because of the complexity of the discharge configuration, ocean outfall design has typically resorted to comprehensive physical model experiments. In addition, the “line plume approximation” is often adopted; the near field dilution and wastefield characteristics are assumed to depend on the discharge volume and buoyancy flux per unit diffuser length without consideration of jet momentum or riser spacing effects.
Fig. 1. A six-jet rosette jet group in crossflow: (a) top view of a six-jet rosette jet group in crossflow (cross-sectional measurement location shown by dotted line); (b) perspective view of horizontal buoyant jets discharging from a riser
The problem of merging buoyant jets from an outfall was first considered by Liseth (1976) for an alternating jet diffuser in stagnant fluid, for a two-dimensional section of a diffuser. In the absence of an ambient current to supply the entrainment demanded by the jets, a “starved plume” condition can result; because of pressure interaction, the horizontal jets discharging in opposite directions on each side of the diffuser bend back toward each other, forming a vertically rising line plume. Isaacson et al. (1983) performed a physical model study for the San Francisco outfall in which rosette jet groups were tested under stratified and unstratified stagnant and flowing ambient, for inter-riser spacing up to 0.5 H (water depth). They found that the dilution did not depend strongly on whether the discharge ports were evenly spaced along the diffuser or were clustered together as risers (up to eight per riser), provided that the total port area per unit diffuser length remained unchanged. The minimum dilution was also found to increase with decreasing port size (or increasing number of nozzles), and ultimately approached that of a line source with the same discharge per unit length. Roberts et al. (1989a, b, c) performed an experimental investigation for multiple T-shaped risers in a linearly stratified crossflow, and found that dilution was only weakly dependent on the source momentum flux and port spacing for typical diffuser arrangements. Roberts and Snyder (1993a, b) performed physical model experiments of the rosette diffuser fitted with 8–12 horizontal nozzles for the Boston outfall. Counter to previous studies, it was found that a 12-nozzle riser resulted in lower dilutions than an 8-nozzle riser for both stagnant and flowing ambient. More recently, Daviero and Roberts (2006) and Tian et al. (2004a, b, 2006) carried out a more detailed investigation on the effect of port spacing on the initial dilution of T-shaped (2-jet) risers. In a related study, a theoretical approach to treat jet merging in stagnant water based on the momentum superposition principle was reported (Yannopoulos and Noutsopoulos 2006a, b). Seo and Yeo (2002) reported a study on the initial dilution of rosette jet groups located in shallow water. Based on their experimental data and dimensional analysis, relations for predicting the dilution of rosette jet groups were established under specific ambient conditions. Other than experimental studies, an attempt to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling to simulate an ocean outfall with a number of rosette risers was reported (Law et al. 2002); the simulation required a run time of four days.
Although the “line plume approximation” adopted in several major outfall studies is applicable in deep water and sufficiently far from the outfall, it is typically not applicable to the site conditions of many Asian cities where the coastal water depth is in the order of 5–20 m (Table 1). There appear to be scant experimental studies of rosette jet group in shallow crossflow, and dimensional analyses based on the limited data are not generally applicable. On the other hand, CFD modeling of outfall discharges is primarily limited to the study of detailed research issues (e.g., Kuang and Lee 2006; Kuang et al. 2006); the advantages of CFD as a design and environmental assessment tool are not apparent, considering the vast range of length scales (ranging from the jet diameter in the order of 0.1 m to a distance of 5–100 m) of the flow phenomenon, the large computational costs and time, and issues of numerical convergence and accuracy. Robust models are needed for predicting the initial dilution of buoyant wastewater effluent from rosette diffusers under any flowing ambient condition.
Table 1. Typical Outfall Discharge Conditions
OutfallQT (m3/s)H (m)NRLD (m)DRsR/HD (m)NFKSource
Masan/Changwon (South Korea)8.2313212101.350.770.241.47–4.25.9–25Seo and Yeo (2002)
Onsan (South Korea)1.742791601.350.670.2543.98Seo and Yeo (2002)
Youngyeon (South Korea)4.0527484701.350.370.11–0.12549.8–10.5Seo and Yeo (2002)
Noksan (South Korea)8.246.56451.21.380.5453–16.7Seo and Yeo (2002)
Sockcho (South Korea)1.2211.56500.64.350.225–0.25042.8–4.46.7–20Seo and Yeo (2002)
Hong Kong1912241,2002.64.340.2589.63.4–50.5
North Head (Sydney)4.4658367600.360.085–0.18563.6–25.22.6–10.8Tate (2002)
Bondi (Sydney)1.9162265000.40.085–0.18543.2–29.42.3–10.8Tate (2002)
Malabar (Sydney)5.6779287200.320.085–0.18584.4–30.93.1–14.9Tate (2002)
Boston (MA)17.1–55.732.3552,00831.150.157810.5–34.08.0–54.5Roberts and Snyder (1993)
San Francisco (CA)6.22–19.7222.9859201.80.480.1097–0.131483.8–19.12.6–23.6Isaacson et al. (1983)
Note: QT=discharge flow; H=water depth; NR = number of risers; LD=diffuser length; DR=riser diameter; sR=riser separation; D=jet diameter; N=number of jets.
A significant issue arising from the previous studies was to determine the number of nozzles that should be used on a riser to optimize the performance of an outfall. The anomaly observed by Roberts and Snyder (1993b) demonstrated that it is not always true that higher dilutions result from a larger number of nozzles (per riser) or a larger number of risers. It is not clear, however, whether this is attributable to the dynamic interaction of jets, as observed by Liseth (1976), or the kinematic interaction of jets attributable primarily to the overlapping of plumes. If the latter is true, it is of interest to see if the initial dilution of the jet group can be predicted by treating each jet independently and computing the jet merging in a three-dimensional manner.
This paper presents a comprehensive experimental study on the mixing of a rosette buoyant and nonbuoyant jet group. Detailed cross-sectional measurements are made of the scalar concentration field downstream of the bent-over jets. The trajectories of multiple and individual jets discharging at various angles are measured. The dynamic and kinematic interaction of the rosette jets are investigated through the measured data. A general model for predicting the jet group dilution of a rosette jet group in a crossflow is presented. The theoretical predictions are compared with experimental data of an unstratified crossflow and data of a stratified crossflow from previous studies. The implication of the findings on outfall design is also discussed.

Dilution of Rosette Jet Group

Consider a jet group clustered around the circumference of an outfall riser, discharging into a horizontal ambient current Ua (Fig. 1). The individual jets in a rosette jet group discharge at different angles θ relative to the ambient current; e.g., as jets in coflow, crossflow, and counterflow. Each individual jet mixes with the ambient current by shear entrainment close to the source and vortex entrainment further away, and is bent-over by the current. If the jet momentum is not directed in the (x-z) plane, where z=vertical direction, the jet will have a three-dimensional trajectory. The mixing of the jet group with the crossflow hence traces out a rosette-shaped pattern, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The merging of the multiple jets is complex (Isaacson et al. 1983; Seo and Yeo 2002), and depends on the jet momentum and buoyancy flux, ambient current velocity, and the riser and port spacing.
Downstream of the riser, the bent-over jets merge and the plume cross sections overlap (Fig. 2). For practical ocean outfall designs, the port diameter (D) is typically an order of magnitude smaller than the riser diameter DR; for example, D/DR0.1 and 0.05 for the Hong Kong Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (Table 1) and the Boston Outfall, respectively (e.g., Roberts and Snyder 1993a). Provided an adequate ambient flow is available for jet entrainment, it is reasonable to assume (to be confirmed by experiments) that the dynamic interaction of the widely separated jets can be neglected as a first approximation; the jets can be treated as independent of each other. By mass conservation, the mass flux of merged multiple jets can be written as
(umAm)Cm=i=1N(uiAi)Ci
(1)
where Am, Cm, um = cross-sectional area, cross-sectional average concentration, and velocity of the merged jets, respectively; Ai, Ci, ui = cross-sectional area, cross-sectional average concentration, and velocity of an individual jet, respectively; and N = number of individual jets [Fig. 2(b)]. In the bent-over phase of a jet in crossflow, experiments have shown that the jet horizontal excess momentum is dissipated within a short distance owing to the mixing with ambient crossflow (e.g., Lee and Chu 2003), and the horizontal jet velocity is approximately the same as the crossflow velocity, with uiumUa. At a downstream x-section, the cross-sectional average concentration of the merged jets is then given as
Cm=i=1N(uiAiCi)/(UaAm)i=1NAiCi/Am
(2)
Fig. 2. Dilution of rosette jet group in crossflow: (a) merging of a rosette jet group in a crossflow; (b) cross section of two overlapping plumes in bent-over phase
The cross-sectional area of the merged jets Am is smaller than the sum of individual jet areas owing to the overlapping area Ao [Fig. 2(b)], with Am=i=1NAi-Ao. The average concentration of the merged jets from a rosette diffuser can then be obtained from Eq. (2), where the concentration and cross section of individual jets can be predicted from a near field jet model, or obtained directly from experiments. The average dilution of the jet group can then be defined as S=Co/Cm, where Co=source concentration.

Experiments

Experiments of rosette jet groups discharging from a riser are performed for a representative range of ambient and discharge velocities in a 12×0.4×0.5m deep recirculating flume (Fig. 3). The discharge flow is fed from a constant head tank and measured by a calibrated Tokyo Keiso rotameter; the ambient velocity is measured by an acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) placed upstream of the rosette diffuser at the same height as the port. Buoyancy of the source fluid is obtained by addition of ethanol to water; the temperature of the source fluid and the ambient fluid are measured by an electronic thermometer, and the density is measured using a Kyoto Electronics density meter. Rhodamine 6G is used as the tracer dye, with a source concentration 0.3mg/L. The concentration field and trajectory of the jet group is measured using the laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) technique. A 5 W argon-ion laser source and a high speed rotating mirror is used to produce the laser sheet for cross-sectional concentration field measurement. In situ calibration is carried out before each set of experiments to determine the response of camera to the dye concentration for ethanol-water mixtures of 0, 20, 40, and 60%. Source fluid of known dye concentration is added and mixed in steps to a water-filled Perspex cell placed at the position of the laser sheet. For each step, the LIF image of the resulting homogeneous solution is captured and the corresponding fluorescent light intensity (gray level) is determined after subtraction of background image. The light intensity varies approximately linearly with the dye concentration. A second order polynomial determined experimentally is used to eliminate any nonlinearity. The error associated with the jet flow and ambient velocity measurement can be estimated to be 1–2%; the maximum deviation of ambient velocity from the flume sectional average velocity is approximately 5%; the error associated with the LIF technique attributable to laser attenuation is estimated to be approximately 2% (Lai 2009). The maximum error of the concentration measurement is estimated to be within 5–10%.
Fig. 3. Experimental setup for rosette jet group experiments in the laboratory flume (12×0.4m)
Six- and eight-nozzle risers are considered; the jets are uniformly clustered around the circumference of the riser and discharge horizontally into the ambient flow; for symmetry, only half of the nozzles are used. The jet nozzle diameter varies in the range of D=0.25-0.49cm; the riser diameter is DR=3.6cm. Two series of experiments are carried out: (1) for nonbuoyant and buoyant jet trajectory (Series 1a and 1b, respectively); and (2) for scalar tracer concentration field (Series 2) measurements. For experiments with nonbuoyant momentum jets, the laser sheet is located horizontally at the center plane of jets, and an overhead charged-coupled device (CCD) camera is used to capture the top-view of the LIF image. 400 LIF images (576×768pixels) are taken with interval of 0.1 s and the time-averaged data of these images are used (after background subtraction) for analysis. For the buoyant jet group, food dye is used to trace the multiple buoyant jet trajectories, because the planar LIF technique is not suitable for determining the three-dimensional buoyant jet trajectories. In these experiments, suitable lighting is provided to give the best visualization effect. Both the top and side views of the jet are simultaneously captured using CCD cameras. 200 images are taken with interval of 0.1 s and time-averaged for later analysis.
The experimental parameters for the nonbuoyant and buoyant rosette jet group trajectory experiments are summarized in Table 2 and 3, respectively. For the buoyant jet-groups, the jet densimetric Froude number, F=Uo/g(Δρ/ρo)D17-54 (where Uo=jet velocity; Δρ=density difference of jet and ambient; ρo=jet density at source; and g=gravitational acceleration); the jet Reynolds number R=UoD/V1,7005,000 (where v is the kinematic viscosity of water); the ratio of jet to ambient velocity, K=Uo/Ua4.8-10. The water depth is kept at H=0.3m.
Table 2. Series 1a: Run Parameters for Rosette Momentum Jet Group Trajectory Experiments in Laboratory Flume
Run numberND(cm)θ (degree)Uo(cm/s)Ua(cm/s)K=Uo/UaR
TJ2A1K120.3030, 9062.515.93.91,876
TJ2A1K220.4930, 9041.38.35.02,024
TJ2A1K320.3030, 9090.915.65.82,728
TJ2A1K420.3030, 9073.89.97.52,213
TJ2A1K520.4930, 9084.78.410.14,149
TJ2A1K620.4930, 9041.34.110.12,024
TJ2A1K720.3030, 90110.210.011.03,306
TJ2A1K820.3030, 90148.810.014.94,463
TJ2A2K120.3030, 15062.515.64.01,876
TJ2A2K220.4930, 15041.38.05.22,024
TJ2A2K320.3030, 15090.916.05.72,728
TJ2A2K420.3030, 15073.810.07.42,213
TJ2A2K520.4930, 15041.34.110.12,024
TJ2A2K620.4930, 15084.78.110.54,149
TJ2A2K720.3030, 150110.210.011.03,306
TJ2A2K820.3030, 150148.89.715.44,463
TJ2A3K120.3060, 12062.516.23.91,876
TJ2A3K220.3060, 12090.916.15.62,728
TJ2A3K320.3060, 12073.89.87.52,213
TJ2A3K420.3060, 12073.89.97.52,213
TJ2A3K420.3060, 12073.89.97.52,213
TJ2A3K520.3060, 120110.29.611.43,306
TJ2A3K620.3060, 120148.89.815.34,463
TJ2A4K120.2590, 13579.310.97.31,982
TJ2A5K120.3090, 15062.515.74.01,876
TJ2A5K220.4990, 15041.37.65.42,024
TJ2A5K320.3090, 15090.916.65.52,728
TJ2A5K420.3090, 15073.89.97.52,213
TJ2A5K520.3090, 15073.89.77.62,213
TJ2A5K620.4990, 15041.34.49.42,024
TJ2A5K720.4990, 15084.77.611.14,149
TJ2A5K820.3090, 150110.29.911.13,306
TJ2A5K920.3090, 150148.89.815.24,463
TJ3A1K130.3030, 90, 15067.015.84.32,011
TJ3A1K230.4930, 90, 15042.07.95.32,058
TJ3A1K330.3030, 90, 15092.816.45.72,783
TJ3A1K430.3030, 90, 15073.59.77.62,204
TJ3A1K530.4930, 90, 15063.78.17.93,120
TJ3A1K630.4930, 90, 15085.48.010.74,183
TJ3A1K730.3030, 90, 150112.09.711.53,361
TJ3A1K830.3030, 90, 150150.69.915.24,518
TJ3A2K130.2545, 90, 13578.010.97.21,951
TJ4A1K140.490–18042.37.95.42,075
TJ4A1K240.490–18064.08.17.93,137
TJ4A1K340.490–18085.78.010.74,199
TJ4A2K140.250–27079.314.65.41,984
TJ4A2K240.250–270121.014.68.33,025
TJ4A2K340.250–270162.614.411.34,066
TJ5A1K150.250–18080.114.75.42,003
TJ5A1K250.250–180119.014.88.12,975
TJ5A1K350.250–180163.414.811.14,086
TJ6A1K160.4930–33034.26.55.21,678
TJ6A1K260.4930–33052.36.58.12,564
TJ6A1K360.4930–33069.26.410.93,390
TJ6A2K160.490–30034.26.85.01,678
TJ6A2K260.490–30052.36.77.82,564
TJ6A2K360.490–30069.26.610.43,390
TJ8A1K180.250–31581.315.05.42,033
TJ8A1K280.250–315123.015.38.03,074
TJ8A1K380.250–315123.014.68.43,074
TJ8A1K480.250–315164.615.110.94,115
TJ8A1K580.250–315199.314.813.54,983
Note: For N jet experiments (N<3), N+1 individual jet experiments are needed; for example, for 3 jet experiments of 30°, 90°, 150°, 4 individual experiments with single jet discharges of 30°, 90°, 150°, and multiple jet experiments of 30°, 90°, 150° are needed. Detailed experimental parameters can be found in Lai (2009).
Table 3. Series 1b: Run Parameters for Rosette Buoyant Jet Group Trajectory Experiments in Laboratory Flume
Run numberND(cm)θ (degree)Uo(cm/s)Ua(cm/s)K=Uo/UaRFg(m/s2)a
TBJ2A1F120.3030, -3073.814.55.12,21324.70.2982
TBJ2A1F220.3030, -30148.814.610.24,46349.10.3055
TBJ2A2F120.3090, -9073.814.95.02,21324.50.3033
TBJ2A2F220.3090, -90148.814.510.34,46349.50.3008
TBJ2A3F120.30150, -15073.814.95.02,21324.70.2977
TBJ2A3F220.30150, -150148.815.09.94,46349.60.2997
TBJ2A4F120.3030, 9073.815.44.82,21325.70.2739
TBJ2A4F220.3030, 90148.815.49.64,46348.50.3133
TBJ2A5F120.3030, 15073.815.74.72,21325.10.2889
TBJ2A5F220.3030, 150148.814.610.24,46348.80.3095
TBJ2A6F120.3090, 15073.810.17.32,21417.00.6252
TBJ2A6F220.3090, 15073.814.75.02,21325.90.2706
TBJ2A6F320.3090, 150148.814.710.14,46348.50.3133
TBJ2A7F120.3060, 12073.810.27.22,21416.90.636
TBJ2A8F120.2590, 13579.310.37.71,98317.20.8538
TBJ3A1F130.3030, 90, 15073.515.34.82,20424.40.3034
TBJ3A1F230.3030, 90, 150150.615.39.84,51848.60.3199
TBJ3A2F130.2545, 90, 13578.010.27.61,95017.00.839
TBJ3A3F130.300, 60, 30073.515.14.92,20425.10.2853
TBJ3A3F230.300, 60, 300150.614.810.24,51850.20.3001
TBJ3A4F130.30120, 180, 24073.514.94.92,20427.50.2383
TBJ3A4F230.30120, 180, 240150.615.110.04,51850.80.2932
TBJ6A1F160.3030–33075.315.25.02,25927.70.2472
TBJ6A1F260.3030–330152.415.010.24,57350.10.3081
Note: For N jet experiments (N<3), N+1 individual jet experiments are needed.
a
g=(Δρ/ρo)g.
In Series 2 experiments, a vertical laser sheet for LIF measurement is produced perpendicular to the ambient flow direction at 20–80D from the riser. A CCD camera fitted with a Nikkor 35 mm lens and Hoya orange filter is enclosed in a water tight Perspex casing and placed under water to capture the cross-sectional LIF image (Fig. 3). The time-averaged concentration field is obtained from 400 images over 40 s, which is considered to be long enough to produce stable and repeatable time-averaged images. In most of the Series 1 and 2 experiments, observations are made on (1) the multiple jet group; and (2) each of the individual jets discharging in isolation. Using the three-jet group of Run TJ3A1K8 (simulating the symmetrical half of a six-jet group) as an example (Table 2), experiments are conducted as follows: single jet discharge at 30°, single jet discharge at 90°, single jet discharge at 150°; then three jets discharging together (TJ3A1K8). In this way, the effect of jet merging on the jet trajectory and the initial dilution can be studied. For the cross-sectional concentration field measurements, supplementary experiments are also carried out in a 12×5m wide×1m deep shallow water basin (Run no. C1J6-8, C2J6-12 in Table 4). Six-, eight-, and 12-jet nozzles are used (i.e., no symmetry plane is used and the full rosette jet group is tested). The jet nozzle diameter is D=0.25-0.75cm. The water depth was kept at H=0.3m. The cross-sectional concentration field of the jet group is measured at 20D–80D. The width of the basin enabled the whole concentration field to be captured without the effect of lateral boundaries, especially for a weak crossflow. The experimental parameters for the cross-sectional scalar field measurements are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Experimental Parameters for Cross-Sectional Concentration Field Measurement
Run numberD(cm)Nθ (degree)Uo(cm/s)Ua(cm/s)Uo/UaRFx/D
C1J1A1F10.3016072.610.17.22,178NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F10.30112072.610.27.12,178NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A1F10.30260, 12073.810.17.32,214NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F10.3019072.610.17.22,178NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A4F10.30115072.610.17.22,178NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A2F10.30290, 15073.810.27.22,214NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A1F10.2514577.711.36.91,943NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F10.2519077.711.26.91,943NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F10.25113577.711.17.01,943NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A3F10.25290, 13579.311.17.11,983NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J3A1F10.25345, 90, 13578.011.17.01,950NA20-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A1F20.3016072.610.07.32,17834.720-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F20.30112072.69.87.42,17834.220-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A1F20.30260, 12073.810.07.42,21434.420-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F20.3019072.610.17.22,17834.520-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A4F20.30115072.610.17.22,17833.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A2F20.30290, 15073.810.17.32,21435.120-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A1F20.2514577.710.27.61,94336.320-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F20.2519077.710.27.61,94334.320-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F20.25113577.710.47.51,94334.020-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A3F20.25290, 13579.310.37.71,98334.120-30-40-50-60-80
C1J3A1F20.25345, 90, 13578.010.37.61,95033.420-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A1F30.3016072.610.27.12,17816.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F30.30112072.610.27.12,17816.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A1F30.30260, 12073.810.27.22,21416.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F30.3019072.610.17.22,17816.620-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A4F30.30115072.610.17.22,17817.220-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A2F30.30290, 15073.810.17.32,21416.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A1F30.2514577.710.27.61,94317.320-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A2F30.2519077.710.37.51,94317.120-30-40-50-60-80
C1J1A3F30.25113577.710.17.71,94316.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J2A3F30.25290, 13579.310.37.71,98316.820-30-40-50-60-80
C1J3A1F30.25345, 90, 13578.010.27.61,95016.520-30-40-50-60-80
C1J6A1F10.3060–30074.44.317.32,23215.320-40-60-80
C1J8A1F10.2580–31574.44.416.91,86016.520-40-60-80
C1J6A1F20.3060–30074.44.715.82,23224.120-40-60-80
C1J8A1F20.2580–31574.44.715.81,86026.420-40-60-80
C2J6A10.75630–33037.14.68.12,78315.920-30-40
C2J8A10.65822.5–337.537.14.68.1241215.720-30-40-60-80
C2J12A10.531230–33037.14.68.1196617.930-40-60-80-100
Note: Riser diameters are 6 cm (small riser); 10 cm (N=6-8), 12 cm (N=12) (large riser); NA = not applicable.

Experimental Results and Analysis

The experimental observations of the jet trajectories and cross-sectional concentration field are presented. First, the observed degree of interaction between adjacent jets is presented and compared to the trajectory of individual single jets for representative jet-groups. The observed jet merging process is described; the interpretation of the experimental data is greatly facilitated by using the JETLAG/VISJET model.
JETLAG is a generalized Lagrangian integral model in which the downstream development of a jet or plume element from the jet exit is computed in the Lagrangian frame with appropriate mixing and entrainment hypothesis (Lee and Cheung 1990; Lee and Chu 2003). Top-hat average velocity and concentration profiles are assumed for the plume element. The model has been validated against laboratory and field results on both trajectory and centerline concentration data for a wide range of discharge and ambient flow conditions. In particular, the model is well-suited for predicting rosette buoyant jet discharges in a crossflow, which are typically characterized by three-dimensional jet trajectories. VISJET is the latest version of JETLAG which includes an updated entrainment hypothesis, an interactive computer interface, and virtual reality visualization (Lee et al. 2000; Lee and Chu 2003). One significant feature of VISJET is the capability of visualizing the jet merging process along any cut plane; in addition, the degree of jet merging (plume overlap) on a given downstream cross section can be quantified. Further details on the model can be found at http://www.aoe-water.hku.hk/visjet.

Initial Mixing of a Rosette Jet Group

The nature of the jet merging process in an ambient flow is illustrated in Fig. 4(a), which shows the top-view of the time-averaged LIF image of a six-jet rosette jet group. The crossflow jet (θ=90°) and the oblique counterflow jet (θ=150°) on each side of the riser are quickly bent over by the current and merged within a few jet diameters downstream of the center of the riser. The oblique jet in the coflow direction (θ=30°) tends to be less affected by the current and only bent over after 10–20D. Further downstream, the jet group merges to form a single composite jet, which would eventually form a surface layer. As a comparison, Fig. 4(b) shows the VISJET simulated trajectory for the same experiment. The predicted jet trajectories show the same features as the observations.
Fig. 4. Top view of a rosette jet group in crossflow (Run TJ6A1K1): (a) LIF image; (b) VISJET simulation

Dynamic Jet Interaction

The degree of jet interaction can be assessed by comparing the measured jet trajectories for the multiple jets against those of the individual single jets. Figs. 5(a-c) show the observed centerline trajectory of three possible configurations of a two-jet discharge, and Fig. 5(d) shows the results for a three-jet discharge (or four and six-jet discharge by symmetry) with the jet-to-ambient velocity ratio K=515 and discharge angle θ=30°-150°. Each figure shows the observed centerline trajectory of the multiple jets (asterisks) and the centerline trajectory of each isolated single jet discharge (solid line with circles). The centerline trajectory is defined as the midpoint between two visual jet boundaries. Jet trajectories are traced up to the point of merging. The observed isolated jet centerline trajectory can be regarded as the path followed by a jet from a rosette jet group if there is no dynamic interaction among adjacent jets. Fig. 5 shows that the multiple jet discharge trajectory follows closely to the isolated jet discharge trajectory for all discharge angles, suggesting that the dynamic interaction is negligible in these typical arrangements of outfall diffusers under a crossflow (with port to riser diameters of the order of 0.1 or less). Similar conclusions can be made for the observations made in the other 80 multiple jet trajectory experiments, including cases with buoyancy; additional results can be found in Lai (2009).
Fig. 5. Measured centerline trajectories of various discharge configurations (top view); multiple jets are indicated by asterisks and single jets by circles joined by solid line: (a) top view of a two-jet discharge, θ=(30°,90°), Run TJ2A1K3,TJ2A1K7,TJ2A1K8; (b) top view of a two-jet discharge, θ=(60°,120°), Run TJ2A3K2,TJ2A3K5,TJ2A3K6; (c) top view of a two-jet discharge, θ=(90°,150°), Run TJ2A5K3,TJ2A5K8,TJ2A5K9; (d) top view of a three-jet discharge, θ=(30°,90°,150°), Run TJ3A1K3,TJ3A1K7,TJ3A1K8
In the isolated single jet experiments, the tracer concentration field in the centerline plane of the jets is measured for selected experiments. The concentration contours of isolated jet experiments can be superimposed to form a corresponding tracer concentration field of the rosette jet group (assuming negligible jet interaction). An example of such a concentration contour obtained by superimposing the measured scalar fields for individual single jets with θ=45°, 90°, and 135° is shown in Fig. 6(a); the corresponding measured concentration field of the rosette jet group discharge is shown in Fig. 6(b). Little difference is visible between the two scalar fields, again suggesting the dynamic interaction is insignificant.
Fig. 6. Measured concentration field (C/Co) of a three-jet rosette jet group in crossflow: (a) concentration field by superposition of isolated single jet of 45°, 90°, and 135°; (b) measured concentration field of multiple jets (Run TJ3A2K1)

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Plume Geometry

Further insights into the jet merging process can be obtained by comparing the observed and predicted jet trajectory and cross-sectional plume geometry for representative experiments. Fig. 7 shows the VISJET predicted trajectories of the discharge from an eight-jet rosette jet group for representative ambient currents, K=5.4-13.5. For each ambient current, the top view of the LIF image is shown, along with the top view of the VISJET visualization; the observed centerline jet trajectory (asterisks) is also compared to the VISJET computed jet centerline trajectories (dashed line) (the 225° jet can hardly be traced because of the blockage of the laser sheet by the riser). VISJET predictions of a single round jet discharging at different angles have been extensively validated in previous studies (e.g., Lee and Cheung 1990; Lee and Chu 2003; Lam et al. 2006). Fig. 7 shows that the computed jet trajectory agrees closely with the observed jet trajectory, although the discrepancy tends to be greater for discharge angles greater than 135°. The predicted jet widths are also in good agreement with the observed jet widths. This is not surprising, because it has already been shown that the dynamic interaction among jets is negligible. It appears that fanning out the jets can significantly reduce the dynamic interaction among the jets.
Fig. 7. Comparison between the VISJET predicted (dashed line) and the observed jet trajectories (asterisks) in an eight-jet rosette group: (a) top view of an eight-jet rosette jet group, K=5.4 (Run TJ8A1K1); (b) top view of an eight-jet rosette jet group, K=8.4 (Run TJ8A1K3); (c) top view of an eight-jet rosette jet group, K=10.9 (Run TJ8A1K4); (d) top view of an eight-jet rosette jet group, K=13.5 (Run TJ8A1K5)

Cross-Sectional Concentration Field

Figs. 8(a, b) show the cross-sectional time-averaged LIF image and cross-sectional concentration contours of an eight-jet rosette jet group at 20–80D. The VISJET predictions show that the individual jets merge and interact in a complicated manner [Fig. 8(c)]. Close to the discharge, at x/D=20, only the jets to the side have merged (θ=90°,135°), as indicated by the overlapping plume elements. In the bent-over phase of a jet in crossflow, the dilution is measured by the cross-sectional area of the plume element. The counterflow jet (top center) has the largest dilution, and the coflow jet (lower center) has the least dilution. This strong mixing of the counterflow jet (not as visible in the LIF image because of much smaller concentration) and the relative less mixing of the other jets are borne out by the observations [Figs. 8(a, b)], and consistent with recent studies (Lam et al. 2006). Further downstream, at x/D=60 and 80, all the jets are nearly merged, and there is significant overlap of the plume elements, suggestive of a significantly reduced dilution (compared to nonoverlapping plumes). The complex jet merging is well-simulated by VISJET [Fig. 8(c)], which treats each individual jet independently. Fig. 8(d) shows the average dilution predicted by VISJET of the coflow and counterflow jet for the run C1J8A1F1. The counterflow jet has been very much diluted by the crossflow within a short distance from the source, whereas the dilution for the coflow jet is initially relatively small.
Fig. 8. Cross-sectional concentration field of an eight-jet rosette jet group (Run C1J8A1F1); measured concentration contours at 0.1Cmax intervals (outermost contour 0.25Cmax): (a) LIF images in the cross section of a rosette jet group; (b) concentration contours in the cross section of a rosette jet group; (c) VISJET simulated cross-sectional view of a rosette jet group; (d) VISJET predicted average dilution of the coflow and counterflow jets

Observed Average Dilution of Merging Jets

The observations on the jet trajectories suggest that there is negligible dynamic interaction among the jets. In the bent-over phase of the jet group, the efficient mixing of the jet with the crossflow results in typically high dilution, and the plume elements are essentially advected at the ambient velocity, with u (x-velocity) Ua. The dilution of the merged jets can be quantified by the average concentration in the cross section by using Eq. (2).
The cross-sectional concentration field downstream of the rosette jet group and that of the corresponding isolated individual jets are measured. In each individual jet experiment, the average concentration Ci in the cross section is determined by summing up the mass within the 0.25Cmax contour of the jet, and divided by the area Ai enclosed by the contour, where Cmax = maximum concentration in the cross section. The 0.25Cmax contour has been shown to correspond approximately to the visual jet boundary for a simple jet, coflow jet, and advected line puffs and thermals (Chu 1996; Chu et al. 1999). Similarly, the average concentration Cm in the cross section of the merged jets is defined by the mass within the 0.25Cmax contour divided by the area of the merged jets, Am (Fig. 2). Am is defined as the area bounded by the envelope of these jet contours and can be determined experimentally. Using the experimentally measured Ai, Ci, and Am, the average concentration of the merged jet group can be predicted by using Eq. (2), thus giving a predicted average dilution of the jet group (S=1/Cm). Fig. 9 compares the observed Cm or average dilution of the jet group with the jet group dilution derived from the measured concentration of the individual jets. They agree well with each other, showing that dilution of a jet group can be predicted by superimposing average tracer concentration of its component individual jets and account for the overlapped area. The dilution prediction without accounting for the overlapped area (superimposing average tracer concentration) is also shown in Fig. 9. The predicted dilution is considerably higher than the observed dilution, showing that the merging effect (kinematic interaction) within a rosette jet group is significant.
Fig. 9. Comparison between measured jet group dilution and the dilution determined from individual jet experiments (open symbols: with interaction; closed symbols: without interaction)

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Jet Group Dilution

The jet group dilution can be predicted by the VISJET model, which allows effective visualization of jet merging and the “plume elements” in any cutting plane. Furthermore, the visual merged jet area [Am in Eq. (2)] is also computed numerically by using three-dimensional computer graphics techniques (Lee et al. 2000; http://www.aoe-water.hku.hk/visjet). Fig. 8(c) shows the predicted visual boundaries of the plume elements and how they intersect at different vertical cross sections downstream.
For a bent-over jet and plume in crossflow, both experiments and turbulence model computations have revealed the existence of added mass (Chu 1996; Lee and Chu 2003). For integral models that neglect added mass, the predicted jet half-width (B) is larger than the visual half-width (“top-hat” profile) by a factor of 1+k, where k=added mass coefficient=1 for advected line puffs and thermals (Chu and Lee 1996). Because the added mass flux effect is not considered in the JETLAG model, the visual half-width can be determined as Bv=B/1+k=B/2 (Chu 1996). This physical interpretation is supported by extensive experiments.
For a bent-over jet group in crossflow, the flux-average dilution S is given by
S=QQo=UaAmfQo
(3)
where Q = local volume flux of the jet group; Qo = source discharge flow; and Amf = merged jet area; Amf=2Am by simple scaling.
The VISJET predicted flux-average dilution [Eq. (3)] is compared to the observed multiple jet dilution [based on the average concentration within the 0.25Cmax boundary and Eq. (2)] in Fig. 10. The predicted dilutions agree well with the experimental data for both buoyant and nonbuoyant jet groups.
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and VISJET predicted cross-sectional averaged dilutions

Comparison of Predicted Dilution with Previous Studies

In this section, the VISJET model is used to predict the jet group dilution of previous detailed studies of rosette jet groups. The objective is to use the present theory to interpret all the previous dilution data in a crossflow, particularly the experiments in a stratified crossflow. In previous studies, the minimum dilution is typically obtained from measurements in the surface or trapping layer; this dilution embodies effects of initial jet mixing and gravitational spreading. Because VISJET predicts the average dilution and does not consider the interaction with the surface layer, a consistent manner of data interpretation is adopted. First, the VISJET predicted dilution is converted to minimum dilution by using the ratio of flux-average dilution to minimum dilution. Table 5 summarizes the flux-average to minimum dilution ratio using data of different studies, along with the ratio adopted in some commonly used line plume models. The ratio obtained from different studies is expected to depend somewhat on the diffuser configuration and the concentration measurement threshold, and varies from 1.1–2.6, with an average of approximately 1.4. This value is hence adopted to convert the average jet group dilution computed from the VISJET model (which can be regarded as a flux-average dilution) to the minimum dilution. This value also embodies uncertainties related to different definitions of flux-average dilution: for example, in Isaacson et al. (1983), the average dilution is defined as the reciprocal of the average concentration over the plume thickness; alternatively, the average dilution can be defined by the concentration averaged over an area enclosed by the 0.05Cmax contour (Roberts et al. 1989a). Second, the VISJET model gives the jet group dilution at any vertical plane downstream; in general, the dilution varies only slowly after a certain distance. For a jet group, each individual jet reaches the surface or trapped level at different positions downstream. For consistency, the predicted jet group dilution is computed at the vertical section when the first jet hits the water surface or terminal level. For a rosette jet group, the initial dilution is typically defined at a section where the counterflowing jet reaches the terminal level. All the simulation details are given in Lai (2009).
Table 5. Ratio of Flux-Average Sa to Minimum Dilution Sm in the Near Field of Rosette Diffuser
InvestigatorsPort numbersR/HF=Ua3/bStratificationSa/SmAverage Sa/Sm
Isaacson et al. (1983)2–80.57–1.430.4–20.0Uniform1.1–1.91.4
    Linear  
    Nonlinear  
Roberts et al. (1989)20.04–0.170.1–100.0Linear1.6–2.62.0
Roberts and Snyder (1993)80.6–2.30.8–7.8Nonlinear1.1–1.31.15
ULINEaUniform2
RSBbLinear1.15
a
ULINE: A USEPA model for line plume in a stratified current described in Muellenhoff et al. (1985).
b
RSB: A USEPA model for line plume in a stratified current described in Baumgartner et al. (1992).

San Francisco Outfall Experiments

Isaacson et al. (1983) performed a physical model study of the middle section of the San Francisco outfall. Experiments were performed in a 30.5m(long)×0.61m(wide)×0.61m (deep) recirculating flume. Inverted towed jet experiments were carried out in a unstratified, two-layer stratified, linearly stratified, or nonuniform stratified environment. Two to eight ports were mounted on each riser with the flume wall acting as planes of symmetry. Port diameter ranged from 17.8–26.7 cm, riser spacing sR ranged from 7.32–21.95 m, and discharge depth hH ranged from 12.80–24.38 m (all in prototype scale), with typically sR/H0.5. Ambient velocities ranged 025.7cm/s. The Roberts’ Froude number, Roberts’ F=Ua3/b=0.4-20, where b=buoyancyflux per unit diffuser length.
Using the outlined methodology, VISJET is used to simulate the merging of rosette jet groups in a crossflow for selected experiments. Because the physical model mimics essentially the center part of a long diffuser, it can be assumed that the discharge is from an infinite number of risers in which end effects can be neglected. In the VISJET model, 10 risers with exactly the same rosette configuration and the same discharge, momentum, and buoyancy flux per unit diffuser length are adopted. Both the dry and wet weather flow conditions are covered. Minimum dilution of these experiments is compared with VISJET by using the methodology introduced. Comparison between the VISJET predicted dilution and the observed dilution is shown in Fig. 11(a); considering the complexity of the flow, the agreement is generally quite good.
Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted and observed dilution of previous studies: (a) prediction of dilution for San Francisco outfall model experiments (Isaacson et al. 1983); (b) prediction of dilution in linearly stratified crossflow (Roberts et al. 1989a, b, c); (c) prediction of dilution in nonlinearly stratified crossflow (Roberts and Snyder 1993a, b)

Multiple Jets in Linearly Stratified Flow

Roberts et al. (1989a, b, c) performed comprehensive experimental studies of multiple jet discharges into a linearly stratified current. Experiments were carried out in a 1.2m(deep)×2.4m(wide)×25m(long) towing tank in the presence of linear stratification, with a nominal buoyancy frequency N=(-g/ρadρ/dz)1/2, and F=0.1-100. The diffuser length was 120 cm, with 25 T-shaped risers (N=2) of diameter 0.395 cm spaced at 5–20 cm. Port diameter used was 0.318 cm.
The VISJET model is used to predict the mixing of the T-shaped riser in a perpendicular stratified crossflow for selected experiments. The VISJET predicted dilution is compared to the observed dilution in Fig. 11(b). In general, the agreement is very satisfactory; the measured dilutions tend to be higher than predicted, possibly reflecting the fact that the dilution measurements were made in the intermediate field, with additional mixing attributable to gravitational spreading of the surface or trapped layer, beyond the jet mixing region.

Boston Outfall Experiments

Roberts and Snyder (1993a, b) performed experiments for a section model of the Boston outfall with rosette risers in highly non-linearly stratified flow. This study differed from the previous study of Roberts et al. (1989a, b, c) in three ways: (1) eight-port and 12-port risers were used; (2) a nonlinear stratification more indicative of prototype conditions was used; (3) effect of riser spacing was studied more extensively. Experiments were carried out in a 1.2m(deep)×2.4m(wide)×25.3m(long) towing tank. Riser spacing in the tank was varied to represent number of risers from 28–111 along the diffuser (length L=2012m). In varying the number of risers, the total port area and diffuser length were maintained constant, preserving the same momentum and buoyancy flux per unit diffuser length. In the experiments, D=0.1070.213m (prototype); Ua=025cm/s were tested. The VISJET model is used to simulate selected experiments of rosette jet groups in a perpendicular crossflow, all with highly nonlinear stratification. As in the previous cases, the diffuser is represented in VISJET by 10 risers of different riser spacings while preserving the same momentum and buoyancy fluxes. Fig. 11(c) shows that the VISJET predictions are in good agreement with the observed data. The prediction for a rosette jet group in a stratified crossflow compares quite well over a wide range of discharge and ambient conditions, over a dilution range of 30 to over 500. In many outfall designs, the port diameter is at least an order of magnitude less than the riser diameter. The encouraging comparison suggests that, at least in a crossflow, the initial dilution of the rosette jet group can be predicted by accounting for the kinematic jet merging.

Application to Outfall Design

It has been demonstrated that for typical riser geometries, the dynamic interaction among clustered jets on an outfall riser is negligible in a current. The initial dilution of merging jet groups can be reasonably estimated from a purely kinematic point of view by using a robust integral jet model with advanced visualization capability. It is certainly of interest to approach optimal outfall design from a more theoretical basis than is hitherto possible. Two important issues are addressed: (1) the optimal number of nozzles to be used on a given riser geometry; (2) the optimal number of risers for a given discharge and diffuser. Both issues can be systematically examined by using VISJET.

Effect of Nozzle Number

Previous experimental studies suggested that for deep water condition, the initial dilution is primarily dependent on the buoyancy flux per unit diffuser length, and independent of individual riser configuration and three-dimensional details (e.g., nozzle diameter and discharge angle). For riser spacing in the order of 0.5 H or less, this result is reasonable, because all buoyant jets tend to behave like a plume far away from the source. For shallow water discharges, however, outfall risers can be widely separated, with sR/H>1. The riser spacing and jet momentum may have a significant effect on the initial dilution. In this study, seven sets of experiments (Run C1J6-8, C2J6-12) are performed to investigate the effect of changing the riser configuration. The total discharge, total nozzle cross-sectional area (hence jet velocity), water depth, and crossflow velocity are kept the same for all cases, and the number of jet nozzles is varied, N=6-12. The experimental parameters are F15-25, K8-17, and H/D=37-112. The cross-sectional averaged dilutions at downstream sections of x/D=20-100 are measured. Fig. 12(a) shows the computed jet group dilution as a function of distance for K17. The dilution generally increases with distance up to a certain point, beyond which the increase is negligible. In terms of initial dilution at x/D=100, the T-shaped riser (N=2) gives the poorest dilution because it surfaces too quickly. In general, the dilution (S) increases with the number of nozzles, up to a certain point. In agreement with the data, the six-nozzle riser or eight-nozzle riser configuration is predicted by VISJET to give the highest dilution. However, further increases in nozzle number beyond N=6 or 8 results in a decrease of dilution because of the severe overlapping of plumes. In particular, the 12-nozzle riser shows poor mixing performance for all downstream locations. Fig. 12(b) shows a similar result for a stronger current, K8. The dilution increases with nozzle number up to six-nozzle or eight-nozzle, and then begins to decrease. The predicted dilution and trend are generally in agreement with the data. The case for six-nozzle has data up to only 40D owing to the surfacing of the plumes. The observed jump of dilution curves in Fig. 12 is related to the definition of average dilution of the jet group. In the first few cross sections (e.g., x/D=20) the counterflow jet is too diluted compared to the coflow jet [Fig. 8(d)]; the concentration of the counterflow jet is below the threshold of C/Cmax=0.25, and hence its contribution to the flux is not included in the determination of jet group average concentration.
Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and VISJET predicted cross-sectional averaged dilutions as a function of nozzle number per riser: (a) K17; (b) K8

Effect of Riser Number

For closely spaced riser, the outermost buoyant jets of adjacent risers may interact with each other, leading to a reduction of dilution. A particular series of experiments in Roberts and Snyder (1993a) with equal diffuser volume flux and buoyancy flux and different riser spacing can be used to investigate the effect of riser spacing on dilution. The experiments were performed under highly nonlinearly stratified crossflow. The diffuser can be simulated by 10 risers with equivalent volume flux, momentum flux, and buoyancy flux per unit length of diffuser; the error associated by using 10 risers to represent the complete diffuser length can be shown to be less than 1%. Fig. 13 shows the predicted and observed variation of dilution as a function of number of risers, using an eight-jet riser (N=8). Supported by the data, the model predicts the correct trend; the dilution increases from NR=20 to approximately 80, beyond which the dilution levels off. The VISJET model predictions are in good agreement with the observed data. In addition, the VISJET predicted dilution for six-nozzle and 12-nozzle riser configuration are also included. As Roberts and Snyder (1993b) observed, the 12-nozzle riser gives slightly poorer dilution than the eight-nozzle riser. The six-nozzle riser gives slightly better dilution than the eight-nozzle riser. To minimize the number of risers (construction cost) while maintaining maximum dilution capacity, the calculations suggest the use of 80 six-nozzle risers for this summer stratification design condition.
Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and VISJET predicted minimum dilution as a function of riser number for the experiments of Roberts and Snyder (1993a, b)

Intermediate Field

After some point downstream, the merged jets form a buoyant surface layer. The time-averaged captured images of the surface spreading of a rosette jet group of six nozzles with F15 and K25 is shown in Fig. 14. The VISJET predicted jet trajectories are superimposed onto the images. Although the extent of the computed multiple jets resembles the initial shape of the wastefield, subsequent buoyant spreading of the surface layer is expected to induce additional mixing in the intermediate field. The intermediate field mixing characteristics can be computed by using a recently developed distributed entrainment sink approach (DESA) for near-far field coupling (Choi and Lee 2007).
Fig. 14. Buoyant spreading of a rosette jet group; Uo=74.5cm/s, Ua=3cm/s, g=0.8114m/s2, R=2,234, F=15.1

Conclusions

A comprehensive experimental and mathematical investigation has been performed on the interaction of rosette jet groups from ocean outfalls in an unstratified crossflow. The multiple jet trajectory and scalar concentration field of rosette jet groups are measured for representative riser configurations and jet to ambient current ratios. For typical outfall design conditions, the experiments show that dynamic interaction among adjacent jets is insignificant. Consequently, the jet trajectory can be predicted for each individual jet as if it is independent of the others. On the basis of this observation, the average dilution of a rosette jet group can be predicted by accounting for the jet merging. Predictions of the jet trajectory and jet group dilution by the VISJET model are in good agreement with experimental data. Furthermore, the predicted dilutions are also in agreement with various rosette jet group experiments for unstratified, uniformly stratified, and nonlinearly stratified ambient conditions. The present contribution is twofold. First, the study of merging plumes is possible only with a general Lagrangian jet model that predicts the mixing of jets discharges at different angles into a stratified crossflow. Second, the merging process and the initial dilution can be quantified with the aid of advanced computer graphics and visualization capability. The present findings demonstrate that in the presence of an ambient current, the initial dilution of merging jets can be predicted by accounting for plume overlap in a purely kinematic manner. The proposed model is capable of predicting the changes in dilution with the number of nozzles or the number of risers, and helps to resolve the apparent anomalies of previous experimental observations. The proposed method can be used as a preliminary design tool to study the performance of an ocean outfall fitted with rosette risers. For stagnant or close to stagnant ambient conditions, the dynamic interaction has been shown theoretically and experimentally to be significant; a semianalytical model has been developed to account for the interaction (Lai and Lee 2008; Lai 2009).

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (Project No. UNSPECIFIEDHKU 7518/03), and in part by a grant from the University Grants Committee (Project No. UNSPECIFIEDAoE/P-04/04). The assistance of Chris Lai in the experimental investigation is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Baumgartner, D. J., Frick, W. E., Roberts, P. J. W., and Bodeen, C. A. (1992). “Dilution models for effluent discharges.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Office of Science and Technology, Newport, OR.
Choi, K. W., and Lee, J. H. W. (2007). “Distributed entrainment sink approach for modeling mixing and transport in the intermediate field.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 133(7), 804–815.
Chu, P. C. K. (1996). “Mixing of turbulent advected line puffs.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Chu, P. C. K., Lee, J. H. W., and Chu, V. H. (1999). “Spreading of turbulent round jet in coflow.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125(2), 193–204.
Chu, V. H., and Lee, J. H. W. (1996). “A general integral formulation of turbulent buoyant jets in crossflow.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 122(1), 27–34.
Daviero, G. J., and Roberts, P. J. W. (2006). “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport diffusers. III: Stratified stationary water.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 132(4), 404–410.
Isaacson, M. S., Koh, R. C. Y., and Brooks, N. H. (1983). “Plume dilution for diffusers with multiport risers.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 109(2), 199–220.
Kuang, C. P., and Lee, J. H. W. (2006). “Stability and mixing of a vertical axi-symmetric buoyant jet in shallow water.” Environ. Fluid Mech., 6(2), 153–180.
Kuang, C. P., Lee, J. H. W., Liu, S. G., and Gu, J. (2006). “Numerical study on plume interaction above an alternating diffuser in stagnant water.” China Ocean Eng., 20(2), 289–302.
Lai, A. C. H. (2009). “Mixing of a rosette buoyant jet group.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lai, A. C. H., and Lee, J. H. W. (2008). “Dynamic interaction in a rosette buoyant jet group.” Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Shallow Water Flows, Hong Kong.
Lam, K. M., Lee, W. Y., Chan, C. H. C., and Lee, J. H. W. (2006). “Global behavior of a round buoyant jet in a counterflow.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 132(6), 589–604.
Law, A. W. K., Lee, C. C., and Qu, Y. (2002). “CFD modeling of a multi-port diffuser in an oblique current.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Marine Waste Water Discharges, Istanbul, Turkey.
Lee, J. H. W., and Cheung, V. (1990). “Generalized Lagrangian model for buoyant jets in current.” J. Environ. Eng., 116(6), 1085–1105.
Lee, J. H. W., Cheung, V., Wang, W. P., and Cheung, S. K. B. (2000). “Lagrangian modeling and visualization of rosette outfall plumes.” Proc., Hydroinformatics 2000, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Lee, J. H. W., and Chu, V. H. (2003). Turbulent jets and plumes—A Lagrangian approach, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Liseth, P. (1976). “Wastewater disposal by submerged manifolds.” J. Hydraul. Div., 102(1), 1–14.
Muellenhoff, W. P., Soldate, A. M., Baumgartner, D. J., Schuldt, M. D., Davis, L. R., and Frick, W. E. (1985). “Initial mixing characteristics of municipal ocean discharges.” Rep. EPA-600/3-85-073a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Roberts, P. J. W., and Snyder, W. H. (1993a). “Hydraulic model study for Boston outfall, I. Riser configuration.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 119(9), 970–987.
Roberts, P. J. W., and Snyder, W. H. (1993b). “Hydraulic model study for Boston outfall, II. Environmental performance.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 119(9), 988–1002.
Roberts, P. J. W., Snyder, W. H., and Baumgartner, D. J. (1989a). “Ocean outfalls. I: Submerged wastefield formation.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(1), 1–25.
Roberts, P. J. W., Snyder, W. H., and Baumgartner, D. J. (1989b). “Ocean outfalls. II: Spatial evolution of submerged wastefield.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(1), 26–48.
Roberts, P. J. W., Snyder, W. H., and Baumgartner, D. J. (1989c). “Ocean outfalls. III: Effect of diffuser design on submerged wastefield.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(1), 49–70.
Seo, I. W., and Yeo, H. K. (2002). “Near-field dilution of rosette type multiport wastewater diffusers.” Water Engineering Research, 3(2), 93–111.
Tate, P. M. (2002). “The rise and dilution of buoyant jets and their behaviour in an internal wave field.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of New South Wales, Australia.
Tian, X., Roberts, P. J. W., and Daviero, G. J. (2004a). “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport diffusers. I: Unstratified stationary water.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(12), 1137–1146.
Tian, X., Roberts, P. J. W., and Daviero, G. J. (2004b). “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport diffusers. II: Unstratified flowing water.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(12), 1147–1155.
Tian, X., Roberts, P. J. W., and Daviero, G. J. (2006). “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport diffusers. IV: Stratified flowing water.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 132(4), 411–419.
Yannopoulos, P. C., and Noutsopoulos, G. C. (2006a). “Interaction of vertical round turbulent buoyant jets. Part I: Entrainment restriction approach.” J. Hydraul. Res., 44(2), 218–232.
Yannopoulos, P. C., and Noutsopoulos, G. C. (2006b). “Interaction of vertical round turbulent buoyant jets. Part II: Superposition method.” J. Hydraul. Res., 44(2), 233–248.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 137Issue 8August 2011
Pages: 787 - 803

History

Received: Mar 5, 2010
Accepted: Nov 5, 2010
Published online: Jan 19, 2011
Published in print: Aug 1, 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Adrian C. H. Lai [email protected]
Postdoctoral Associate, Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology Centre; formerly, Ph.D. student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong SAR, China. E-mail: [email protected]
Daeyoung Yu
Deceased; formerly, Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong SAR, China.
Joseph H. W. Lee, F.ASCE [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong SAR, China; formerly, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong SAR, China (corresponding author). 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