Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Comparative study of a vertical round jet in regular and random waves

Zhenshan Xu a,b, Yongping Chen a,b,n, Changkuan Zhang b, Chi-wai Li c, Yana Wang b, Fei Hu b
a
b
c

State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 May 2013
Accepted 6 August 2014
Available online 2 September 2014

The hydrodynamic behaviors of a vertical round jet in regular and random waves are comparatively
investigated. The regular and the random waves are chosen based on the concept of equivalent energy
density and energy ux. The experimental study is rst carried out to compare the lateral proles of jet
mean axial velocity at various vertical levels. The results show that, under the present experimental
conditions, the phenomenon of twin peaks appears in the regular waves, but virtually does not exist in
the corresponding random waves. This results in a lower axial velocity along the centerline for the jet in
the regular waves. A large eddy simulation (LES) model is subsequently developed to quantify the
difference of jet half-width under the same wave conditions as those in the laboratory. The numerical
results show that the jet in the random waves has a larger jet half-width than that in the regular waves,
which is consistent with the visual observations in laboratory experiments. More scenarios of the jet in
different regular and random waves are numerically investigated and the results show that the twin
peaks may also appear under the condition of random waves, but requiring a larger wave-to-jet
momentum ratio.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Turbulent jet
Regular waves
Random waves
Equivalent energy density
Equivalent energy ux
Twin peaks

1. Introduction
Submarine outfalls have been commonly used for the sewage
wastewater treatment in the coastal areas. The wastewater discharged from the outfalls will be mixed with surrounding waters
in the form of a turbulent jet, which is usually subjected to the
effect of sea waves. The sea waves may exhibit different dynamic
characteristics due to different wave generation mechanisms.
Wind waves, which are generated directly by local winds or
storms, consist of the waves with various wave heights and
frequencies, so their dynamic characteristics such as velocities
and pressures are fairly random. In contrast, swells, which are
generated by distant winds or storms from another site, consist of
waves with similar wave heights and frequencies, so their characteristics are rather regular. In order to have a more accurate
assessment of wastewater discharge effect on the coastal waters, it
is necessary to carefully investigate the jet behaviors in different
types of waves.
Over the past decades, the dynamic behaviors of jets in regular
waves have been intensively studied. It can be concluded from
n
Corresponding author at: College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore Engineering,
Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China. Tel.: 86 25 83787708;
fax: 86 25 83701905.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.08.005
0029-8018/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

previous experimental (Chin, 1987; Chyan and Hwung, 1993; Koole

and Swan, 1994a, 1994b; Mori and Chang, 2003; Mossa, 2004; Ryu
et al., 2005), numerical (Dai and Wang, 2005; Yuan, 2007) and
theoretical (Chin, 1988; Lin et al., 2009) studies that the entrainment rate of jets in regular waves is signicantly increased by the
wave oscillatory motion, resulting in the jets having faster decay of
centerline velocity, wider spreading width, larger dilution rate and
stronger turbulence than those in stagnant ambience. Those
conclusions are applicable to both horizontal jets and vertical jets,
but it is more apparent in vertical jets as the wave-induced crossow effect is more signicant in the latter case (Chyan and
Hwung, 1993). The strong wave effect may also result in nonGaussian distribution of jet axial velocity and concentration along
the lateral (or cross-sectional) proles. According to the experimental data presented by Chyan and Hwung (1993) who measured the cross-sectional proles of a vertical round jet using a
highly precise LIF-LDV system, the mean velocity and concentration proles exhibit the twin peaks phenomenon under the
strong wave action. Koole and Swan (1994b) developed a simple
model to explain this phenomenon based on the time-averaging of
lateral displacement of a Gaussian prole with the pace of wave
periodic movement. The model reveals the sequence of distribution changes, i.e. Gaussianat toppedbi-peaked, with the
increase of wave action, which was qualitatively described by the
ratio of wave-induced displacement (l) to the jet width (b).

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

Although the model was developed for the vertical jets, it seems
also valid for the horizontal jets, indicating that the proles of
horizontal jets may also have twin peaks if the wave-induced
vertical displacement is large enough compared to the jet width.
However, as the model was only conceptual, no exact criteria of l/b
was given to determine the occurrence of different types of
distributions. Recently, Mori and Chang (2003) introduced another
non-dimensional parameter, i.e. wave-to-jet momentum ratio (RM)
to quantify the relative importance of the wave motion to the jet
motion, and it was found to be a useful parameter to generalize
the jet-wave interactions (e.g., Ryu et al., 2005; Chang et al., 2009
and Hsiao et al., 2011). Therefore, this parameter will be used in
this study as an index to indicate the relative largeness of waveinduced motion in different wave conditions.
In contrast to the relatively long-term research history of the
jet in regular waves, the jet in random waves attracted the
researchers interest only recently. At the early of 2000s, with
the consideration of wave randomness, Tam and Li (2008) measured the instantaneous and mean velocities of a vertical round jet
in JONSWAP random waves using a 10 MHz Acoustic Doppler
Velocimeter (ADV). Based on the non-dimensional analysis of
relevant parameters, they developed a Lagrangian integral model
to predict the mean properties of the jet, such as centerline
velocity and jet width, in the random wave environment. Chen
et al. (2008) later developed a 3D LES numerical model to simulate
the ow eld of the jet in such wave conditions, and the numerical
results agree well with those measured in the laboratory experiments. They conrmed that the random waves have a positive
effect on the jet spreading and mixing. Recently, Lu et al. (2011)
also used a similar LES model to study the turbulence structure of
the jet in random waves. The role of coherent structures on the
momentum transfer along the jet centerline and the jet instantaneous characteristics under the effect of JONSWAP random waves
was numerically visualized.
It is noted that most of the previous studies in the literature
only focused on either regular or random waves, but the difference
between the jet in regular and random waves is still not clearly
known. This study aims to answer this question by quantitatively
comparing the mean velocity proles of the jet in regular and
random waves based on the concept of equivalent energy density
and energy ux. As the vertical jet can experience both decrease
of jet momentum and increase of wave momentum when moving
forward, without loss of generality, a vertical round jet was
considered in this study for the comparison. The experimental
measurements were rst carried out to show the difference of jet
mean velocities along the centerline and the lateral proles in
different types of waves. As the amount of quantitative data
obtained in the laboratory was rather limited, a LES model was
developed to reconstruct the ow eld of the jet in the corresponding wave conditions, and the half-width of jet were comparatively computed based on the numerical results. The LES
model was further applied to investigate the differences of lateral
proles under a wider range of wave conditions, and some general
conclusions were made based on the above study.

201

described as follows,
"

  4 # exp
5 f
4 5
2
Sf g 2 f exp 

4 f0
(
 0:07; f r f 0
0:09;




f 4f 0

f  f 0 2

2 2 f 2
0

where S(f) is the spectral density, f is the wave frequency, g is the

acceleration due to gravity, is the scaling parameter,  , are
the shape factors, 3.3 is the peak enhancement factor and f0 is
the peak frequency.
Based on the wave spectral theory, the signicant wave height
Hs and the peak wave period Tp for the JONSWAP waves in deep
waters can be approximately calculated by the following equations
(Goda, 2009),
p
H s 4 m0
2
T p 1:1T  1;0 1:1

m1
m0

where T  1,0 is the spectral period and mn (n  1, 0) is the nth

moment of wave spectrum dened as,
Z 1
n
mn
f Sf df
4
0

Based on the concept of equivalent energy density and energy ux

(Natale and Vicinanza, 2000), the relations between the equivalent regular and random waves can be numerically expressed as
follows,
g

H 20
gm0
8

H 20
g 2
Cg
m1
8
4

where is the water density, H0 and Cg are the wave height and
the group velocity of the regular waves. According to the linear
wave theory, the wave group velocity in deep waters can be
calculated by the following equation,
Cg

gT 0
4

where T0 is the wave period of regular waves.

Based on the above equations, the following relationships can
be obtained,
p
H s 2H 0 or H rms H 0
8
and
T p 1:1T 0

or

T  1;0 T 0

where Hrms is the root mean square wave height of the JONSWAP
waves. Thus, if the wave height H0 and the wave period T0 of the
regular waves are known, the corresponding parameters of the
random waves, such as the signicant wave height Hs and the peak
wave period Tp can be determined, and vice versa. The equivalent
regular and random waves statistically have the same amount of
energy density and energy ux.

2. Concept of equivalent energy density and energy ux

3. Experimental study

In order to form a basis for comparison of jet in different types

of waves, the concept of equivalent energy density and energy ux
is introduced to relate the wave parameters between different
types of waves. Without loss of generality, the JONSWAP waves
are chosen to represent the random waves. The spectral form
of JONSWAP random waves (Hasselmann et al., 1973) can be

3.1. Experimental setup and measurements

The experiments were conducted in a 46.0 m long, 0.5 m wide
and 1.0 m deep wave ume at the College of Harbor, Coastal and
Offshore Engineering, Hohai University. A round acrylic pipe, with
the diameter of 1.0 cm, was installed at the mid-section of the

202

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

constant head tank

0.5m

Table 1
Jet and wave parameters in the physical experimental cases.

0.5m

Wave type

source container

Experimental case Jet initial (Peak) wave (Signicant) wave

velocity period
height

valve
paddle

0.4m

w0 (m/s) T0 or Tp (s)

2.5m

pump

No wave

ES1
ES2

0.88
0.60

Regular waves

ER1
ER2
ER3
ER4

0.88
0.88
0.88
0.60

1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0

30
30
45
30

0.88
0.88
0.88
0.60

1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1

42
42
63
42

0.5m
1.0m
wave generator

1.0m

jet

0.5m

absorber

26.0m
46.0m
Fig. 1. The sketch of experimental setup.

ume. The jet was discharged vertically through the pipe at

the centerline of the ume, with the jet orice 10.0 cm above
the bottom. The jet water was supplied from a constant head tank
above the wave ume, using an adjustable valve to control the
volume ow rate. Regular or random waves were generated by a
piston-type paddle movement, controlled by the computer. After
propagating through the test section, the waves were dissipated by
a wave absorber installed at the tail of the ume. The reection
coefcients under the present experimental wave conditions were
less than 6%. The sketch of experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1.
The static water depth was kept constant at 0.5 m throughout
the experiments. The free surface elevation was measured using
the resistance wave gauges located at the upstream and downstream sides 1.0 m away from the jet centerline. A 16 MHz sidelooking Micro Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry (ADV) was used to
measure the 3D velocities of jets in different wave and stagnant
ambient conditions. The sampling volume for the ADV measurement is less than 0.09 cm3, which is ne enough for the measurements of the round jet of diameter 1 cm under the wave
environment (Tam and Li, 2008). A three-dimensional measurement frame was used to x the ADV, ensuring the accurate
positioning of the ADV system. The maximum positioning error
is 1 mm by use of this frame. The sampling periods were set to
more than 120 and 20 times of wave period for the time-averaged
analysis in random wave-jet and regular wave-jet conditions
respectively, with the sampling rate of 20 Hz. The accuracy of
the calibrated ADV probe is 7 1% of the measured range with the
data transmission rate of 25 Hz. Before the quantitative measurements, a 3-CCD camera was set up at the outside of the ume to
record the ow pattern of the jet using the dye of Potassium
Permanganate (KMnO4).
A total of 10 experimental cases were conducted with different
wave heights, wave periods and jet initial velocities. Among them,
ES1ES2 represent the cases of the jet in stagnant ambience, ER1
ER4 and EJ1EJ4 represent the cases of the jet in regular waves and
in random waves respectively. The wave steepness (ka, where a is
the wave amplitude and k is the wave number, dened as 2/L) in
each case is in the range of 0.060.09, indicating that the linear
wave theory is applicable to describe those waves. The detailed
parameters for all the experimental cases are listed in Table 1.
Based on the qualitative observations of dye record by the
3-CCD camera, 59 points were chosen for the quantitative measurements by the ADV, among which 13 points were located at the
centerline of the jet. The locations of those points are shown in
Fig. 2. The points along the centerline were measured for all the
cases, while the other points along 6 lateral proles at the levels of
z/d 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 (where z is the distance away from the
jet nozzle and d is the diameter of jet nozzle) were measured only
for the cases of ES1ES2, ER1ES2 and EJ1EJ2. The ADV measurements at each point were carried two times but with the same
sampling period to eliminate the occasional errors.

H0 or Hs (mm)

Random waves EJ1

EJ2
EJ3
EJ4

wave direction

centerline

40

35
30

axial

25
20

lateral

15
10
x/d -7.5

-5.0

-2.5

2.5

5.0

7.5

5
z/d

Fig. 2. Locations of measurement points.

3.2. Experimental results

3.2.1. Qualitative observations
The time-averaged jet motion in stagnant ambience, regular
and random waves (ES1, ER1 and EJ1) are shown in Fig. 3, each of
which is obtained by overlapping 80 continuous shooting photos
with the frequency of 5 Hz. It is clearly seen that the jet spreading
width under the regular or random waves is wider than that in
stagnant ambience. Further, it appears that the jet in the regular
waves has a smaller spreading width than that in the corresponding random waves, which indicates a stronger mixing occurred in
the latter case.

3.2.2. Quantitative results

The mean ow characteristics of the jet in stagnant ambience
(Case ES1) are rst examined here. The mean values are calculated
by the time averaging of measured data within 20 s. The distribution of the axial velocity along the centerline (x/d 0) is shown in
Fig. 4(a). It can be seen that the experimental data in the zone of
established ow (z/d4 8) agree well with the theoretical curve
obtained by Lee and Chu (2003), who summarized the results of
most previous experiments, and can be described as,
wc
6:2z=d  1
w0

10

where wc is the time-averaged jet axial velocity along the centerline; w0 is the jet initial velocity.
As shown in Fig. 4(b), the time-averaged lateral proles of the
axial velocity at different levels (z/d 1030) follow the Gaussian

203

35

30

30

30

25

25

25

20

20

20

z/d

35

z/d

35

z/d

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

15

15

15

10

10

10

0-15 -10

-5

0 x/d 5

10

0 -15 -10

15

-5

0 x/d 5

10

15

0-15 -10

-5

0 x/d 5

10

15

Fig. 3. Overlapped shooting photos of the jet in (a) stagnant ambience (Case ES1), (b) regular waves (Case ER1) and random waves (Case EJ1) in the experimental study.

1.2

1.2

ES1

0.8
w /wc

wc /w0

0.8
0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

ES1
Gaussian profile

1.0

Theoretical curve

10

15

20

25

30

35

z/d

0.0
-3

-2

-1

0
x/bw

Fig. 4. Comparison of (a) Centerline velocity prole and (b) lateral velocity proles of jet in stagnant ambience (ES1) between experimental data and theoretical results.

distribution quite well, which can be described as,

"

w
x
exp 
wc
bw

2 #
11

where x is the lateral distance from the jet centerline, bw is the jet
half-width which is dened as the distance from the centerline to
the point at which the velocity ratio w/wc equals to 1/e. Those
good agreements show that the experimental setup and the
measurement equipment used in this study are considerably
reliable.
To compare the mean characteristics of jet in different wave
conditions, the measured data were time-averaged within 20 and
120 times of wave period for the cases of regular wave-jet and
random wave-jet, respectively. By doing so, the component of
wave velocities can be largely excluded from the mean values.
The lateral proles of mean axial velocity at different levels
(z/d 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30) in the cases of ES1, ER1 and EJ1 are
plotted in Fig. 5. In the area close to the jet nozzle (z/d 5), there is
nearly no difference among the three cases. The jet motion is
hardly affected by the wave force because of the relatively small
momentum ratio of wave to jet in this area. With the increase of
distance from the jet orice, the jet width becomes larger and the
velocity along the centerline decays faster for the jet in waves than

that in stagnant ambience. Apart from that, it is also found that the
phenomenon of twin peaks appears in some lateral proles in
the case of ER1 at the levels of z/d 15 and 20; however, virtually
this phenomenon does not appear in the case of EJ1. Similar
difference is also found in the cases of ER2 and EJ2, although not
shown here.
Under the effect of twin peaks, the maximum jet axial
velocity does not exist at the centerline, resulting in the velocity
at the centerline for the jet in regular waves is smaller than that in
random waves. This is illustrated by the comparison of centerline
velocity proles in different wave conditions, as show in Fig. 6. It
can be seen that in the region close to the nozzle, the centerline
velocity value in the regular waves is nearly the same as that in the
random waves. With the increase of distance away from the
nozzle, the wave effect increases, and the centerline velocity in
regular waves becomes smaller than that in random waves,
particularly at the levels of z/d 1025.
Apart from the jet axial velocity at the centerline, the halfwidth of the jet body is also an important parameter to describe
the jet reactions to the surrounding environment. However, due to
the limited amount of data obtained in the laboratory experiments, it is quite difcult to quantitatively compare this parameter.
This comparison can alternatively be conducted using numerical
approach which is described in the following section.

204

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

1.2
1

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

ES1
ER1
EJ1

ES1
ER1
EJ1

w//w0

0.4

w//w0

0.4

ES1
ER1
EJ1

1
w//w0

0.8
w//w0

1.2

ES1
ER1
EJ1

0.2

0.2

-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

ES1
ER1
EJ1

ES1
ER1
EJ1

w//w0

0.4

w//w0

0.4

-9

0.2

0.2

-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

Fig. 5. Comparison of lateral proles of jet mean axial velocity in the experimental cases of ES1 (stagnant ambience), ER1 (regular waves) and EJ1 (random waves) at the
level of (a) z/d 5; (b) z/d 10; (c) z/d 15; (d) z/d 20; (e) z/d 25; (f) z/d 30.

4. Numerical study
4.1. Model description
4.1.1. Governing equations
A -coordinate three-dimensional LES model is developed
based on the spatially ltered NavierStokes equations (Chen et
al., 2008). The large-scale turbulent motion is directly solved by a
nite difference scheme, while a sub-grid turbulence model is
used to model the sub-grid scale turbulence closure. The governing equations in -coordinate can be written as,
ui k
0
k xi

12


ij k
ui ui k
u k
1 p k
k
ui m
k
uj ki
k


i
m
k x
k

t
x
x

xj
j
i
j
j
13

where ui is the velocity components, p is the pressure, is the

water density, gi is the acceleration of gravity, is the kinematic
viscosity, ij is a trace-free tensor component of the sub-grid stress,
, i and t, xi are the temporal and spatial coordinates in coordinate and Cartesian systems, respectively. Their relationships
can be expressed as,
t;

1 x1 x;

2 x2 y

x3 h z h

h h

14
15

where is the surface elevation, h is the static water depth,

ranges from 0 to 1.
The trace-free tensor component of the sub-grid stress ij can
be expressed as,
ij  T


ui uj
 2T Sij

xj xi

16

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

1.2

1.2
ES1
ER1
EJ1

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0

10

15

20

25

30

ES1
ER2
EJ2

1
wc /w0

wc /w0

0.8

205

35

10

15

z/d

1.2

30

35

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0

10

15

20

25

30

ES2
ER4
EJ4

1
wc /w0

0.8
wc /w0

25

1.2
ES1
ER3
EJ3

20
z/d

35

10

15

z/d

20

25

30

35

z/d

Fig. 6. Comparison of jet axial velocity along the centerline in the experimental cases of (a) ES1, ER1 and EJ1, (b) ES1, ER2 and EJ2, (c) ES1, ER3 and EJ3, and (d) ES2, ER4
and EJ4.

T C s 2

q
2Sij Sij

17

where T is the eddy viscosity; Cs is Smagorinsky constant, which is

calibrated in the paper as 0.20; is a representative grid spacing
which is dened as x1 x2 x3 1=3 , where x1, x2, x3 are
the grid size in three coordinate directions.

the jet inlet turbulence in the literature, which have been

discussed in detail by Chen et al. (2008). The recommended
method, i.e. azimuthal forcing method, is adopted in this study.
For more detailed description of the numerical method and
boundary conditions, the readers are referred to Lin and Li
(2002) and Chen et al. (2008).
4.2. Validation of the model

4.1.2. Numerical method and boundary conditions

An operator splitting method, which splits the solution procedure into advection, diffusion and pressure propagation steps, is
employed so that different numerical schemes can be used for the
solution of different physical processes. In this study, the second
order central difference scheme is used to solve the advection and
diffusion steps; The CGSTAB conjugate method is used to iteratively solve the propagation step. The velocity, pressure and free
surface are calculated by a forward time-marching scheme (Lin
and Li, 2002).
The boundary conditions are applied at each time step. The noslip and zero-gradient boundary conditions are imposed at the
bottom and two lateral boundaries, respectively. The dynamic and
kinematic conditions are applied at the free surface. For tracking
the movement of the water particles, a so-called LagrangeEuler
Method (Chen et al., 2004, 2006) is applied to update the free
surface elevation at every new time step. The pre-dened water
levels are specied at the inow boundary to numerically generate
the regular or random waves. Meanwhile, the radiation condition
combined with the sponger layer is specied at the outow
boundary to reduce the numerical reection.
As the grid size used in LES model is usually not sufciently
small to allow the computed ow to evolve from laminar to
turbulence in the jet pipe, it is crucial to specify correct jet inlet
turbulence at the jet nozzle boundary to simulate the jet initial
turbulence. There are three methods commonly used to generate

The wave parameters for the numerical model (marked as NR1

and NJ1) are identical to those in the experimental runs of ER1 and
EJ1. For sake of convenience, the round jet in the model is treated
as an equivalent square jet with the same cross-sectional area. This
treatment is common for the numerical simulation when the
rectangular grid system is used. The accuracy of this approach
has been conrmed in the RANS simulation of a non-buoyant jet in
cross-ow (Lee et al., 2002) and the LES simulation of a buoyant jet
in stagnant water (Zhou et al., 2001) as well as a non-buoyant jet in
random waves (Chen et al., 2008). A cubic region of 4.50 m long,
0.50 m wide and 0.50 m deep is selected as the computational
domain, which is discretized into a convergent non-uniform grid
system of 272  73  51 nodes in X, Y and Z directions, with gradual
grid renement near the jet center on the xy plane as well as near
the jet exit and the free surface on the xz plane. A total of 9  9
nodes are used to discretize the cross-section of jet nozzle with the
uniform spacing of 1.11 mm. The time step is 0.002 s.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the numerical and experimental
centerline proles of mean axial velocity. It can be seen that,
despite of small differences in the zone of ow establishment, the
numerical results agree well with the experimental data. Fig. 8
shows the numerical and experimental lateral proles of jet axial
velocity at three different levels (z/d 10, 20 and 30). The numerical results again agree well with the experimental data. It is
clearly seen that twin peaks appear in the case of jet in regular

206

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

waves at the level of z/d 20 and 30; however, this phenomenon

does not occur in the case of the jet in the corresponding random
wave conditions. The good agreement between the numerical and

experimental results indicates that the numerical model can be

used for the comparative study of jet half-width between these
two types of waves.

1.2

1.2
ER1
NR1

0.8
wc /w0

wc /w0

0.8
0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

10

15

20

25

30

EJ1
NJ1

35

10

z/d

15

20

25

30

35

z/d

Fig. 7. Comparison of jet axial velocity prole along the centerline in the cases of (a) regular waves and (b) random waves between the numerical results (NR1, NJ1) and
experimental measurements (ER1, EJ1).

1.2

1.2

ER1
NR1

0.8
w//w0

w//w0

0.8
0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
-9

EJ1
NJ1

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

0
-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

ER1
NR1

EJ1
NJ1

0.4
w//w0

w//w0

0.4

0.2

0
-9

0.2

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

0
-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0.6

ER1
NR1

0.4

EJ1
NJ1

w//w0

w//w0

0.4

0.2

0
-9

0.2

-6

-3

0
x/d

0
-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

Fig. 8. Comparison of lateral distribution of mean axial velocity between numerical results (NR1, NJ1) and experimental measurements (ER1, EJ1) at the levels of (a) and (b)
z/d 10; (c) and (d) z/d 20; (e) and (f) z/d 30.

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

207

8.0
wm

NS1
NR1
NJ1

bw /d

6.0

wm /e

4.0
2.0

bw=0.114z

x
bw

bw

0.0

Fig. 9. Traditional denition of jet half-width.

10

15

20

25

30

35

z /d
Fig. 11. Comparison of jet half-width in the numerical cases of stagnant ambience
(NS1, Theoretical results), regular waves (NR1) and random waves (NJ1).

w
wm

A1 =0.844A0

waves but not in the cases of random waves. However, the bipeaked lateral proles were experimentally observed in the cases
of random waves when the waves were relatively strong (Tam and
Li, 2008). In order to make our conclusions more general, we
carried out a series of numerical experiments using various wave
height, wave period and jet initial velocity conditions. In order to
generalize our experimental conditions, the wave-to-jet momentum ratio introduced by Mori and Chang (2003) is adopted. Based
their suggestion, the wave-to-jet momentum ratio in regular
waves is dened as,

bwave

bwave

Fig. 10. New denition of jet half-width.

4.3. Comparison of jet half-width

Jet half-width is an important parameter to describe the rate of
jet spreading in the surrounding environment. Traditionally, the
jet half-width bw is dened as the lateral distance from the point
at the jet centerline to the point at which the axial velocity is equal
to 1/e of the centerline axial velocity, as shown in Fig. 9. However,
this denition may not be accurate for the jet in wave conditions
because the distribution of lateral prole may change to be nonGuassian and the centerline axial velocity is not guaranteed to be
the maximum along the prole. In order to tackle this problem, a
more general denition of the half-width of jet, bwave, is introduced in this study. First, as illustrated in Fig. 10, an area ratio
parameter is dened,

A1
A0

18

where A0 is the whole area under the curve of the lateral prole of
axial velocity, A1 is the shaded area bounded by the curve of the
lateral prole and the vertical lines with the distance of jet halfwidth away from the centerline (i.e. x 7bwave). As the parameter
for a jet in stagnant ambience is equal to 0.844, bwave is then
dened to make the ratio is equal to 0.844 in the cases of jet in
waves. In fact, this denition can be also applied to calculate the
jet half-width in stagnant ambience and the result will be same as
the one calculated by the traditional denition.
According to the new denition, the jet half-widths in regular
waves (NR1), JONSWAP random waves (NJ1) and stagnant ambience
(NS1) are computed and plotted in Fig. 11. It can be seen that the jet
half-widths in regular and random waves are signicantly increased
and the increase rates vary with the distance away from the nozzle,
which is consistent with the conclusions made by Dai and Wang
(2005) and Tam and Li (2008). Apart from that, the jet half-width in
the random waves is larger than that in the regular waves, and this
difference between them increases with the distance further away
from the jet nozzle. It is consistent with the visual observations in
the laboratory experiments, as shown in Fig. 3.
4.4. Comparison of velocity lateral proles
Under the present experimental/numerical wave and jet conditions, the twin peaks only appears in the cases of regular

RM

ga2
2dw20

19

where a is the wave amplitude, which is equal to H0/2. According

to Mori and Chang (2003), the pattern of instant jet oscillation
due to waves can be classied into three types: Type I: symmetric
oscillation with a continuous jet centerline; Type II: asymmetric
oscillation with a continuous centerline; Type III: asymmetric
oscillation with a discontinuous centerline. With the increase of
RM, the jet motion will gradually transform from Type I to Type II
and then to Type III. As for a horizontal jet in opposing standing
waves, the jet motion of types I, II and III was observed with
RM o0.04 to 0.05, 0.05 oRM o 0.2, and RM 40.2, respectively (Mori
and Chang, 2003). Without loss of generality, a vertical jet in
regular or random waves may also experience the sequence of
Type I, II and III if RM is continuously increased from a small value.
Similar to Eq. (19), the wave-to-jet momentum ratio in random
waves can be dened as,
RM

gm0
dw20

20

As the equivalent regular and random waves have the same wave
energy density, the wave-to-jet momentum ratios in these two
types of waves are the same under the above denitions.
In total 16 cases with various wave and jet conditions have
been investigated in the present study. For sake of brevity, only the
results of 6 representative cases are shown in this paper. The jet
and wave parameters for these 6 cases are shown in Table 2.
The cases of NR0 and NJ0 have the relatively small wave-to-jet
momentum ratio, i.e. 0.004; the cases of NR1 and NJ1 have the
medium wave-to-jet momentum ratio, i.e. 0.14; and the cases
of NR2 and NJ2 have relatively large wave-to-jet momentum ratio,
i.e. 4.90.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of lateral proles of axial velocity
at the level of z/d 17.29 among different cases. It is clearly seen
that, with the increase of the wave-to-jet momentum ratio, the
lateral proles of the jet in regular waves change with the
sequence of single peak to at top and to twin peaks. Similar
results are found in the cases of jet in random waves but less
apparent. In other words, it requires a larger wave-to-jet

208

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

momentum ratio to present the twin peaks in the lateral proles

of axial velocity in random waves than those in regular waves.
In order to explain the above differences, we plot the lateral
proles of phase-averaged jet axial velocity at the level of z/d
17.29 for all the 6 representative cases, as shown
 in Fig.
 13. In this
gure, the phase-averaged jet axial velocity w x; z; t p is calculated
by the following formula (referring to Chyan and Hwung, 1993),
!
N 1
1 N
Ti
wx; z; t p w x; z; T k t p
21
Ni1
T
k1

(in this study 16 different phase times, i.e. 0, 1/16 T, 2/16 T,,
15/16 T are selected for the illustration) and N is total number of
waves during the sampling time.
In the cases of NR0 and NJ0, the wave-to-jet momentum ratio is
only 0.004, and the wave effect is fairly weak. The jet oscillation
due to waves is symmetric with a continuous centerline (Type I),
such that the jet phase-averaged velocity proles keep good
Gaussian shape (see Fig. 13a and b), therefore the jet mean velocity
proles in both regular and random waves only have a single peak
and the difference between them is insignicant (see Fig. 12a).
In the case of NR1, the wave-to-jet momentum ratio is
increased to 0.14, and the wave effect becomes signicant.
Although the centerline is still continuous, it is periodically bent
over with the uctuation of wave motion; the jet oscillation is not
symmetric along the vertical direction any more (Type II). As a
result, the jet phase-averaged axial velocity proles (see Fig. 13c)
are regularly skewed to the left and to the right, with the peak
values at two ends of centerline displacement is larger than the
ones in the middle. This mechanism is one of the reasons to form
the twin peaks in the regular wave conditions. Apart from that,
according to the simple model developed by Koole and Swan
(1994b), as the jet-induced velocity is zero at the two ends of
wave-induced displacement, the jet will stay longer at these
locations than that at the jet centerline, which is conceptually
shown in Fig. 14. This mechanism may also contribute to the
formation of twin peaks for the jet in regular waves. It is noted
that the maximum lateral displacement due to the jet bendingover is about 3 cm, while the maximum wave-induced lateral
displacement is about 0.6 cm according to the wave linear theory.
It indicates that the bending-over of jet centerline and the
asymmetric distribution of instant jet axial velocity are the main
reasons to form the twin peaks at the level of z/d 17.29 in the
case of NR1. In contrast, in the case of NJ1, although the wave-tojet momentum ratio is same as the one in the case of NR1, the

in which wx; z; t is the jet instantaneous axial velocity, which is

calculated by subtraction of the instantaneous wave velocity
(obtained from the numerical modelling of pure waves) from the
instantaneous jet-wave velocity (obtained from the numerical
modelling of jet in regular or random waves) at the exact same
computational time; Ti is the individual wave period during the
sampling time; T is the mean wave period; tp is the phase time
Table 2
Jet and wave parameters in the numerical experimental cases.
Wave type

No wave
Regular
waves
Random
waves

Numerical
case

NS1
NR0
NR1
NR2
NJ0
NJ1
NJ2

(Peak)
Jet
Wave
initial
velocity period

(Signicant) Wave-to-jet
Wave height momentum
ratio

w0 (m/
s)

T0 or Tp (s) H0 or Hs
(mm)

RM

0.88
0.88
0.88
0.15
0.88
0.88
0.15

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1

0.004
0.14
4.90
0.004
0.14
4.90

5
30
30
7
42
42

1
0.8

NR1
NJ1

0.4

0.6

w//w0

w//w0

0.6

NR2
NR0
NJ2
NJ0

0.4

0.2

0.2
0
-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

0
-9

-6

-3

0.6

0
x/d

NR3
NR2
NJ3
NJ2

w//w0

0.4

0.2

0
-9

-6

-3

0
x/d

Fig. 12. Lateral proles of axial mean velocity proles at the level of z/d 17.29 in the numerical cases of (a) NR0 and NJ0, (b) NR1 and NJ1 and (c) NR2 and NJ2 with the
wave-to-jet momentum ratio equal to (a) 0.004, (b) 0.14 and (c) 4.90, respectively.

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

conditions (see Fig. 13e and f). It is noted that the maximum
wave-induced displacement at level of z/d 17.29 is about 0.6 cm,
while the distance between the twin peaks in the instant jet
proles is about 6 cm. Although the randomness of wave-induced
motion has a smoothening out effect, the twin peaks can still
appear in the case of NJ2. Of course, the twin peaks will be more

0.6
wave-induced
displacement

0.4
w//w0

phase-averaged proles are almost symmetric along the centerline

of jet nozzle, i.e. x/d 0 (see Fig. 13d). It is because the probability
of wave phases for the random waves is evenly distributed on the
range of 02, which means the displacement and the direction of
jet bending-over shall be very random, resulting in the approximately Gaussian distributions of phase-averaged proles at all the
phase times. Besides, following the central limit theory, the
probability of jet stay time around the jet centerline should be
normally distributed. Taking these two factors into account, it is
understandable why the twin peaks do not appear at the level of
z/d 17.29 in the case of NJ1 (see Fig. 12b).
In the cases of NR2 and NJ2, the wave-to-jet momentum ratio
is further increased to 4.90, and the jet movement is almost
dominated by the wave motion. As the jet centerline cannot
tolerate large deformation under the strong wave effect, it turns
to be discontinuous (Type III). Due to the discontinuousness (see
the experimental photos taken by Chyan and Hwung, 1993; Mori
and Chang, 2003), some part of jet body could leave the jet main
body with some amount of remaining momentum. This part of jet
moves forward at one direction while the jet main body moves at
another direction, resulting in the existence of twin peaks in
the phase-averaged proles in either regular or random wave

0.2

0
-9

-6

NR0

w//w0

0.2

-9

-6

-3

0.4

-9

-6

-3

x/d
0.4

NR1

NJ1

0.3

w//w0

0.3

w//w0

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

-9

-6

-3

-9

-6

-3

x/d

x/d

0.4

0.4

NR2

NJ2

0.3

w//w0

0.3

w//w0

NJ0

x/d

0.2

0.1

0
x/d

0.6

0.4

-3

0.8

0.6

w//w0

bj

Fig. 14. Lateral displacement of a Gaussian prole moving with the wave-induced
displacement.

0.8

209

0.2

0.1

-9

-6

-3

-9

-6

-3

Fig. 13. Lateral proles of phased-averaged axial velocity at the level of z/d 17.29 in the numerical cases of (a) NR0, (b) NJ0, (c) NR1, (d) NJ1, (e) NR2 and (f) NJ2, in which 16
different phase times, i.e. 0, 1/16 T, 2/16 T,, 15/16 T are used for illustration.

210

Z. Xu et al. / Ocean Engineering 89 (2014) 200210

apparent in regular waves than those of jet in random waves

(see Fig. 12c).
5. Conclusions
Based on the concept of equivalent energy density and energy
ux, a comparative study of a vertical round jet in regular and
random waves has been conducted experimentally and numerically.
It is found the lateral proles of time-averaged jet axial velocity
gradually change in a sequence of single peakat toptwin
peaks with the increase of wave-to-jet momentum ratio in both
types of waves; however, a larger wave-to-jet momentum ratio is
required for the presence of twin peaks for the jet in random
waves than that in regular waves. The existence of twin peaks
results in a faster velocity decay along the centerline for the jet in
regular waves. Moreover, based on a more general denition, the jet
half-width in random waves is found to be slightly larger than that
in regular waves, which is well consistent with the visual observations in the laboratory experiments.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key Basic Research
Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China
(Grant no. 2010CB429001), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 51379072), the Specialized Research Fund
for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (Grant no.
20120094110016), the 111 Project of the Ministry of Education
and the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs, China
(Grant no. B12032) and the Scientic Research Innovation Plan for
Graduate Students of Jiangsu Province (Grant no. CXZZ11_0448).
References
Chang, K.A., Ryu, Y., Mori, N., 2009. Parameterization of neutrally buoyant
horizontal round jet in wave environment. J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng.
135 (3), 100107.
Chen, Y.P., Li, C.W., Zhang, C.K., 2004. Development of a fully nonlinear numerical
wave tank. China Ocean Eng. 18 (4), 501514.

Chen, Y.P., Li, C.W., Zhang, C.K., 2006. Large eddy simulation of vertical jet
impingement with a free surface. J. Hdrodyn 18 (2), 148155.
Chen, Y.P., Li, C.W., Zhang, C.K., 2008. Numerical modeling of a round jet discharged
into random waves. Ocean Eng. 35 (1), 7789.
Chin, D.A., 1987. Inuence of surface wave on outfall dilution. J. Hydraul. Eng. 113
(8), 10061018.
Chin, D.A., 1988. Model of buoyant-jet-surface-wave interaction. J. Waterw. Port
Coastal Ocean Eng. 114 (3), 331345.
Chyan, J.M., Hwung, H.H., 1993. On the interaction of a turbulent jet with waves.
J. Hydraul. Res. 31 (6), 791810.
Dai, H.C., Wang, L.L., 2005. Numerical study of submerged vertical plane jets under
progressive water surface waves. China Ocean Eng. 19 (3), 433442.
Goda, Y., 2009. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures, third ed. World
Scientic, Singapore.
Hasselmann, K., Barnett, T.P., Bouws, E., et al., 1973. Measurements of wind-wave
growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP).
Deut. Hydrogr. Z 8 (Suppl. 12).
Hsiao, S.C., Hsu, T.W., Lin, J.F., et al., 2011. Mean and turbulence properties of a
neutrally buoyant round jet in a wave environment. J. Waterw. Port Coastal
Ocean Eng. 137 (3), 109122.
Koole, R., Swan, C., 1994a. Measurements of a 2-D non-buoyant jet in a wave
environment. Coastal Eng. 24, 151169.
Koole, R., Swan, C, 1994b. Dispersion of pollution in a wave environment. In: Proc.,
24th Coast. Eng. Conf., Kobe.
Lee, J.H.W., Kuang, C.P., Chen, G.Q., 2002. The structure of a turbulent jet in
a crossow: effect of jet-crossow velocity. China Ocean Eng. 16 (1), 120.
Lee, J.H.W., Chu, V.H., 2003. Turbulent Jets and Plumes-a Lagrangian Approach.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lin, P.Z., Li, C.W., 2002. A -coordinate three-dimensional numerical model for
surface wave propagation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 38 (11), 10451068.
Lin, Y.P., Hsu, H.C., Chen, Y.Y., 2009. Theoretical analysis of a buoyant jet interacting
with small amplitude waves. China Ocean Eng. 23 (1), 7384.
Lu, J., Wang, L.L., Tang, H.W., et al., 2011. Large eddy simulation of vertical turbulent
jets under JONSWAP waves. Acta Mech. Sin 27 (2), 189199.
Mori, N., Chang, K.A., 2003. Experimental study of a horizontal jet in a wavy
environment. J. Eng. Mech 129 (10), 11491155.
Mossa, M., 2004. Experimental study on the interaction of non-buoyant jets and
waves. J. Hydraul. Res. 42 (1), 1328.
Natale M.D., Vicinanza D., 2000. Experimental velocity proles in wave-jet interaction. In: Proc., 10th Int. Offshore Polar Eng. Conf., Seattle.
Ryu, Y., Chang, K.A., Mori, N., 2005. Dispersion of neutrally buoyant horizontal
round jet in wave environment. J. Hydraul. Eng 131 (12), 10881097.
Tam, B.F., Li, C.W., 2008. Flow induced by a turbulent jet under random waves.
J. Hydraul. Res. 46 (6), 820829.
Yuan L. L., 2007. The three dimensional numerical simulation of vertical jet in
waves. In: New Trends in Fluid Mechanics Research: Proceeding of the Fifth
International Conference on Fluid Mechanics. pp. 380380.
Zhou, X., Luo, K.H., Williams, J.J.R., 2001. Large-eddy simulation of a turbulent
forced plume. Eur. J. Mech. B. Fluids 20, 233254.