# On the Effect of Block Roughness in Ogee Spillways with Flip Buckets

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

^{®}software to simulate the flow with regular mesh. Steiner et al. [7] investigated the ski jump hydraulics in a laboratory model study related to circular bucket geometry. Kermannejad et al. [8] worked on dynamic pressure due to the impact of a ski jump out of a flip bucket downstream of a chute spillway model. Their results showed that the pressure coefficient is highly sensitive to horizontal and vertical distances from the impact location and impact angle. Zhenvwei and Zhiyan [9], and Parsaie et al. [10] investigated flow characteristics over chutes and the cavitation phenomenon using computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) approaches on a spillway’s flip bucket. Daneshfaraz and Ghaderi [11] studied the effect of a reverse arch of an ogee spillway on pressure on the spillway. Yamini et al. [12] experimentally investigated the effect of entrance flow conditions on pressure fluctuation on the bed of compound flip buckets of the Gotvand dam in Iran.

## 2. Methods

#### 2.1. Energy-Dissipation Analysis

_{0}is the relative energy dissipation, H

_{dam}is the dam height, ρ is the water density, μ is the dynamic viscosity of water, g is the gravitational acceleration, V the approaching flow velocity, y the flow depth, R the bucket’s radius, θ the take-off angle, σ the surface tension, and a the dimension of the roughness block. According to the Buckingham π theorem, the general relationship below can be obtained:

_{dam}is the relative critical flow depth, Fr is the approach flow Froude number to the bucket, We is the Weber number, and Re is the Reynolds number of the flow approaching the bucket, assuming the same value in all experiments (Re > 1 × 10

^{5}), thus not influencing Equation (2) [16]. Moreover, the effect of surface tension can be neglected: when flow depth on the spillway was more than 0.05 m (in the experiments, the least flow depth on the spillway was 0.053 m), inertia force dominated, and the effects of the Weber number (We = ρV

^{2}L/σ) could be neglected. In this research, longitudinal dimension and roughness height a were fixed. Thus, the final equation can be summarized as:

#### 2.2. Multiphase (Water/Air) Hydraulic Model

^{®}computational package, able to solve complex fluid dynamic problems, was used. This software shows high performance in modeling unsteady free-surface flows: it utilizes the finite-volume method for structured meshes to solve the three-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations of fluid motion. These equations can be written in a Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) as follows [17,18]:

_{F}the fractional volume open to flow in the fractional area/volume obstacle representation (FAVOR) method, p the pressure, and R the source term.

_{k}is the production of turbulent kinetic energy that arises due to mean velocity gradient, G

_{b}is turbulent kinetic energy production from buoyancy, Y

_{M}is the fluctuating dilation in compressible turbulence, and α

_{k}and α

_{ε}are inverse effective Prandtl numbers for turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation, respectively [28]. In the above equations, ${\alpha}_{k}$ = ${\alpha}_{s}$ = 1.39, C

_{1s}= 1.42, and ${C}_{2\epsilon}$= 1.6 are model constants. All constants were explicitly derived in the RNG procedure. Terms S

_{k}and ${S}_{\epsilon}$ are sources terms for $k$ and $\epsilon $, respectively. In addition, R

_{ε}is a proper term of the RNG model with respect to the k–ε one. The following equations provide details on how effective viscosity is determined, considering molecular and turbulent effects:

_{t}is turbulence viscosity and $\mu $

_{eff}is effective viscosity.

## 3. Experimental and Numerical Test Cases

#### 3.1. Experiment Facilities

^{3}/s, connected to two rotameters with ±2% accuracy [34,35]. To eliminate turbulence in the entrance region, a planar mesh was added. At the inlet of the flume, there was a screen that eliminated the flow turbulence, and flow slowly entered the laboratory flume; to ensure steady flow, spillway models were installed 1.5 m downstream of the inlet tank. The physical model of the ogee spillway, based on the procedure reported in USBR (1987) [36], was fabricated from dense polyethylene and located 0.7 m far from the inlet of the flume (Figure 1), with a scale of 1:33 (height of 0.27 m, length of 0.4 m, and width of 0.3 m) on the basis of the Froude similarity criterion between model and prototype. It includes the whole ogee spillway and chute, which is 0.4 m long and connected with the flip bucket at the exit. After some pre-experiments, two types of flip buckets with take-off angles θ = 35° and 52 °C, and radii R = 19 and 12 cm, respectively, were considered. Block roughness with length and width of 1.5 cm, and height of 0.5 cm was considered in the bed of the ogee spillway.

_{r}is the relative energy dissipation, E

_{0}is the total energy of upstream flow, and E

_{1}is the current energy in the base of the spillway. Figure 2 and Table 1 illustrate the dimensions of the ogee spillway model with the roughness block, and list the geometric and hydraulic conditions, respectively (parameter a in Figure 2 is the dimension of the roughness block). Considering the 1:33 scale of physical model, approach flow Froude number Fr = V/(gh)

^{0.5}was about 1.29–3.62, with Reynolds number Re = Vh/ν being about 2.07 × 10

^{4}–3.895 × 10

^{4}, where ν is the kinematic water viscosity, g is the gravitational acceleration, and V and h are the mean velocity and depth of approach flow, respectively.

#### 3.2. Numerical Domain

^{®}software was used to build up the geometry of the models with a stereolithography (STL) file. According to the experiment conditions, the following boundary conditions were employed:

- inlet boundary condition was set as discharge flow rate (Q);
- outflow (O) boundary condition was used downstream (at a sufficiently far location to prevent boundary effects on the results);
- the bottom and side boundaries were treated as a rigid wall (W), and no-slip conditions were applied at the wall boundaries;
- an atmospheric boundary condition was set to the upper boundary of the channel, which allowed for the flow to enter and leave the domain; and
- symmetry boundary condition (S) was also used at the inner boundaries.

_{min}boundary was evaluated to be 4H

_{dam}= 1.1 m. In fact, monitoring the water-surface variations at different stations upstream of the ogee spillway revealed that 1 m was sufficient for an undisturbed approach flow to be established. Figure 3A shows the computational domain of the present study and associated boundary conditions.

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Verification of Numerical Model and Laboratory Results

^{®}and experimental data were calculated according to Equation (14):

_{SE(Exp)}is the experimental free-surface elevation, and F

_{SE(Num)}is the numerical counterpart. Figure 5 and Table 3 show free-surface profiles and errors. Good agreement was found between numerical and experimental data, and both of them represent a similar trend. The maximal difference between the data was related to X = 0.25 m and is equal to ~7%, and the overall mean values of the relative errors was ~2%, which confirmed the ability of the numerical model to predict flow specifications over the ogee spillway. A summary of the overall mean values of the relative errors generated for other discharges is shown in Table 4.

#### 4.2. Flow Pattern Downstream of Ogee Spillway with Block Bed and Different Buckets

#### 4.3. Energy Dissipation in Ogee Spillway with Block Bed and Different Buckets

#### 4.4. Jet Length in Ogee Spillway with Block Bed and Different Buckets

^{2}= 0.95 via ± 7% relative error and R

^{2}= 0.96 via ± 7.4% relative error, respectively. A scatter of points relative to the linear regression indicated that the experimental and computational values were in good agreement.

## 5. Discussion

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Vischer, D.L.; Hager, W.H. Dam Hydraulics; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA; Chichester, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Yamini, O.A.; Kavianpour, M.R.; Movahedi, A. Pressure distribution on the bed of the compound flip buckets. J. Comput. Multiph. Flows
**2015**, 7, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Maitre, R.; Obolensky, S. Etude de Quelques Caractéristiques de l’Ecoulement dans la Partie Aval des Evacuateurs de Surface. Houille Blanche
**1954**, 4, 481–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rhone, T.J.; Peterka, A.J. Improved tunnel spillway flip buckets. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**1959**, 126, 1270–1291. [Google Scholar] - Juon, R.; Hager, W.H. Flip bucket without and with deflectors. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2000**, 126, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dargahi, B. Experimental study and 3D numerical simulations for a free-overflow spillway. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2006**, 132, 899–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Steiner, R.; Heller, V.; Hager, W.H.; Minor, H.E. Deflector Ski Jump Hydraulics. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2008**, 134, 562–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kermannejad, J.; Fathi Moghadam, M. Dynamic pressure of flip bucket jets. World Appl. Sci. J.
**2011**, 9, 1448–1454. [Google Scholar] - Zhenwei, M.U.; Zhiyan, Z. Numerical simulation of 3-D flow field of spillway based on VOF method. Procedia Eng.
**2012**, 28, 808–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Parsaie, A.; Dehdar-Behbahani, S.; Haghiabi, A.H. Numerical modeling of cavitation on spillway’s flip bucket. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
**2016**, 10, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daneshfaraz, R.; Ghaderi, A. Numerical Investigation of Inverse Curvature Ogee Spillway. Civ. Eng. J.
**2017**, 3, 1146–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yamini, O.A.; Kavianpour, M.R.; Mousavi, S.H.; Movahedi, A.; Bavandpour, M. Experimental investigation of pressure fluctuation on the bed of compound flip buckets. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2017**, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] - Peterka, A.J. Hydraulic design of stilling basins and energy dissipators. In A Water Resources Technical Publication, Engineering Monograph, No. 25; United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Kaya, N.; Emiroglu, M.E. Study of oxygen transfer efficiency at baffled chutes. Presented Meet. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag.
**2010**, 163, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Elnikhely, E. Investigation and analysis of scour downstream of a spillway. Ain Shams Eng. J.
**2017**, 9, 2275–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pfister, M.; Chanson, H. Two-phase air-water flows: Scale effects in physical modelling. J. Hydrodyn.
**2014**, 26, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Flow Science Inc. FLOW-3D V 11.2 User’s Manual; Flow Science Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ghaderi, A.; Abbasi, S. CFD simulation of local scouring around airfoil-shaped bridge piers with and without collar. Sādhanā
**2019**, 44, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yakhot, V.; Orszag, S.A. Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence: Basic Theory. J. Sci. Comput.
**1986**, 1, 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cable, M. An Evaluation of Turbulence Models for the Numerical Study of Forced and Natural Convective Flow in Atria. Master’s Thesis, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Savage, B.; Johnson, M. Flow over ogee spillway: Physical and numerical model case study. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2001**, 127, 640–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aydin, M.C.; Ozturk, M. Verification and validation of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model for air entrainment at spillway aerators. Can. J. Civ. Eng.
**2009**, 36, 826–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sangsefidi, Y.; MacVicar, B.; Ghodsian, M.; Mehraein, M.; Torabi, M.; Savage, B.M. Evaluation of flow characteristics in labyrinth weirs using response surface methodology. Flow Meas. Instrum.
**2019**, 69, 101617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daneshfaraz, R.; Joudi, A.R.; Ghahramanzadeh, A.; Ghaderi, A. Investigation of flow pressure distribution over a stepped spillway. Adv. Appl. Fluid Mech.
**2016**, 19, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zahabi, H.; Torabi, M.; Alamatian, E.; Bahiraei, M.; Goodarzi, M. Effects of geometry and hydraulic characteristics of shallow reservoirs on sediment entrapment. Water
**2018**, 10, 1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ghaderi, A.; Abbasi, S.; Abraham, J.; Azamathulla, H.M. Efficiency of Trapezoidal Labyrinth Shaped Stepped Spillways. Flow Meas. Instrum.
**2020**, 72, 101711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daneshfaraz, R.; Ghahramanzadeh, A.; Ghaderi, A.; Joudi, A.R.; Abraham, J. Investigation of the Effect of Edge Shape on Characteristics of Flow under Vertical Gates. J. Am. Water Work. Assoc.
**2016**, 108, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yakhot, V.; Orsarg, S.A.; Thangam, S.; Gatski, T.B.; Speziale, C.G. Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique. Phys. Fluids
**1992**, 4, 1510–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Biscarini, C.; Di Francesco, S.; Manciola, P. CFD modelling approach for dam break flow studies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2010**, 14, 705–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Daneshfaraz, R.; Minaei, O.; Abraham, J.; Dadashi, S.; Ghaderi, A. 3-D Numerical simulation of water flow over a broad-crested weir with openings. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2019**, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghaderi, A.; Dasineh, M.; Abbasi, S.; Abraham, J. Investigation of trapezoidal sharp-crested side weir discharge coefficients under subcritical flow regimes using CFD. Appl. Water Sci.
**2020**, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Johnson, M. Discharge Coefficient Scale Effects Analysis for Weirs. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Moradinejad, A.; Saneie, M.; Ghaderi, A.; Shahri, S.M.Z. Experimental study of flow pattern and sediment behavior near the intake structures using the spur dike and skimming wall. Appl. Water Sci.
**2019**, 9, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ghaderi, A.; Daneshfaraz, R.; Dasineh, M.; Di Francesco, S. Energy Dissipation and Hydraulics of Flow over Trapezoidal–Triangular Labyrinth Weirs. Water
**2020**, 12, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghaderi, A.; Daneshfaraz, R.; Torabi, M.; Abraham, J.; Azamathulla, H.M. Experimental investigation oneffective scouring parameters downstream from stepped spillways. Water Supply
**2020**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - United States Bureau of Reclamation. Design of Small Dams; United States Department of Interior—Bureau of Reclamation: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
- Choufu, L.; Abbasi, S.; Pourshahbaz, H.; Taghvaei, P.; Tfwala, S. Investigation of flow, erosion, and sedimentation pattern around varied groynes under different hydraulic and geometric conditions: A numerical study. Water
**2019**, 11, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Di Francesco, S.; Zarghami, A.; Biscarini, C.; Manciola, P. Wall roughness effect in the lattice Boltzmann method. AIP Conf. Proc.
**2013**, 1558, 1677–1680. [Google Scholar] - Biscarini, C.; Di Francesco, S.; Ridolfi, E.; Manciola, P. On the Simulation of Floods in a Narrow Bending Valley: The Malpasset Dam Break Case Study. Water
**2016**, 8, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Venturi, S.; Di Francesco, S.; Geier, M.; Manciola, P. Forcing for a Cascaded Lattice Boltzmann Shallow Water Model. Water
**2020**, 12, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Venturi, S.; Di Francesco, S.; Geier, M.; Manciola, P. A new collision operator for lattice Boltzmann shallow water model: A convergence and stability study. Adv. Water Resour.
**2020**, 135, 103474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghaderi, A.; Daneshfaraz, R.; Abbasi, S.; Abraham, J. Numerical analysis of the hydraulic characteristics of modified labyrinth weirs. Int. J. Energy Water Resour.
**2020**, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pourshahbaz, H.; Abbasi, S.; Pandey, M.; Pu, J.H.; Taghvaei, P.; Tofangdar, N. Morphology and hydrodynamics numerical simulation around groynes. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2020**, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Longo, S.; Ciriello, V.; Chiapponi, L.; Di Federico, V. Combined effect of rheology and confining boundaries on spreading of gravity currents in porous media. Adv. Water Resour.
**2015**, 79, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ciriello, V.; Longo, S.; Chiapponi, L.; Di Federico, V. Porous gravity currents: A survey to determine the joint influence of fluid rheology and variations of medium properties. Adv. Water Resour.
**2016**, 92, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 5.**Comparison of free-surface profiles from FLOW-3D software with laboratory data; Q = 0.0085 m

^{3}/s.

**Figure 6.**Streamlines on x–y plane. (

**A**) Without buckets; (

**B**) buckets with θ = 32°; (

**C**) buckets with θ = 52°.

**Figure 7.**Streamlines on x–y plane. (

**A**) Without buckets and smooth bed; (

**B**) without buckets and block bed.

**Figure 8.**Difference in relative energy dissipation versus Froude number in block bed with different take-off angles.

**Figure 9.**Difference in relative energy dissipation in smooth and block beds. (

**A**) Without bucket; (

**B**) bucket with θ = 32° (

**C**) bucket with θ = 52°.

**Figure 11.**Difference in jet length versus Froude number in flip bucket with different take-off angles.

**Figure 12.**Difference in jet length in smooth and block beds. Bucket with (

**A**) θ = 32° and (

**B**) θ = 52°.

**Figure 13.**Comparison between observed and computational relative energy dissipation and jet length.

Range | Q (m^{3}/s) | y (cm) | R (cm) | $\mathsf{\Theta}\text{}\left(\mathbf{Deg}\right)$ | Fr | Re |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Min | 0.005 | 5.3 | 12 | 32 | 1.29 | 20,700 |

Max | 0.014 | 11.7 | 19 | 52 | 3.62 | 38,950 |

Test No. | Coarser Cell Size (cm) | Finer Cell Size (cm) | Total Mesh Number | MAPE (%) * $100\times \frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{n}}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathbf{n}}}\left|\frac{{\mathbf{X}}_{\mathbf{exp}}-{\mathbf{X}}_{\mathbf{num}}}{{\mathbf{X}}_{\mathbf{exp}}}\right|$ | ** RMSE (cm) $\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathit{n}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathit{n}}({\mathbf{X}}_{\mathbf{exp}}}-{\mathbf{X}}_{\mathbf{num}}{)}^{\mathbf{2}}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

T1 | 1.2 | 0.55 | 944,125 | 19.24 | 4.6 |

T2 | 1.1 | 0.50 | 1,335,000 | 8.89 | 1.94 |

T3 | 0.95 | 0.45 | 1,769,834 | 8.45 | 1.75 |

T4 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 2,541,311 | 2.42 | 0.39 |

T5 | 0.70 | 0.35 | 3,906,163 | 1.90 | 0.33 |

_{exp}: experimental value of X; X

_{num}: numerical value of X; n: data count. ** Root mean square error; X

_{exp}: experimental value of X; X

_{num}: numerical value of X; n: data count.

X(m) | Fs_{E} (m)_{Exp} | Fs_{E} (m)_{Num} | Relative Errors (%) | RMSE (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|

−0.28 | 0.326 | 0.330 | 1.22 | 0.04 |

−0.20 | 0.327 | 0.331 | 1.22 | 0.04 |

−0.15 | 0.325 | 0.330 | 1.53 | 0.05 |

−0.10 | 0.324 | 0.328 | 1.22 | 0.04 |

−0.05 | 0.324 | 0.325 | 0.38 | 0.01 |

0.00 | 0.322 | 0.323 | 0.38 | 0.01 |

0.05 | 0.309 | 0.313 | 1.22 | 0.04 |

0.15 | 0.217 | 0.223 | 2.76 | 0.06 |

0.25 | 0.116 | 0.124 | 6.89 | 0.08 |

0.35 | 0.074 | 0.076 | 2.07 | 0.02 |

0.45 | 0.083 | 0.088 | 1.53 | 0.05 |

0.55 | 0.133 | 0.139 | 2.76 | 0.06 |

0.60 | 0.144 | 0.148 | 1.22 | 0.04 |

0.65 | 0.146 | 0.149 | 2.03 | 0.03 |

Mean | 1.88 | 0.04 |

Q(m^{3}/s) | Mean Relative Errors (%) | Mean RMSE(cm) |
---|---|---|

0.005 | 1.42 | 0.02 |

0.007 | 1.21 | 0.04 |

0.0085 | 1.88 | 0.04 |

0.010 | 1.56 | 0.03 |

0.011 | 1.42 | 0.04 |

0.013 | 1.26 | 0.03 |

0.014 | 1.47 | 0.04 |

Take-Off Angles (θ) | Bed | Q (m^{3}/s) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

0.005 | 0.007 | 0.0085 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.014 | |||

∆E_{r} | Without flip bucket | Smooth | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.54 |

Blocked | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.58 | ||

32° | Smooth | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.58 | |

Blocked | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.64 | ||

52° | Smooth | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.65 | |

Blocked | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.69 |

Take-Off Angles (θ) | Bed | Q (m^{3}/s) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

0.005 | 0.0070 | 0.0085 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.014 | |||

L | 32° | Smooth | 20.5 | 24.5 | 29.5 | 32.7 | 37.7 | 40.3 | 42.8 |

Blocked | 8.6 | 14.0 | 20.5 | 32.0 | 32.0 | 35.9 | 39.5 | ||

52° | Smooth | 12.4 | 15.5 | 19.2 | 31.0 | 31.0 | 38.5 | 43.0 | |

Blocked | 7.4 | 12.5 | 15.5 | 23.5 | 23.5 | 30.7 | 36.0 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Daneshfaraz, R.; Ghaderi, A.; Akhtari, A.; Di Francesco, S.
On the Effect of Block Roughness in Ogee Spillways with Flip Buckets. *Fluids* **2020**, *5*, 182.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5040182

**AMA Style**

Daneshfaraz R, Ghaderi A, Akhtari A, Di Francesco S.
On the Effect of Block Roughness in Ogee Spillways with Flip Buckets. *Fluids*. 2020; 5(4):182.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5040182

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Daneshfaraz, Rasoul, Amir Ghaderi, Aliakbar Akhtari, and Silvia Di Francesco.
2020. "On the Effect of Block Roughness in Ogee Spillways with Flip Buckets" *Fluids* 5, no. 4: 182.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5040182