0003

Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in Coastal Engineering Downloaded from www.worldscientific.
com
Chapter 3
Principles of Similitude
by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 08/23/15. For personal use only.
"The practical application of similitude in hydraulic model test-

ing is based on recognition of the fact that there is not complete
similitude, but rather several imperfect similitudes which can be
exploited as required." ...Jacob E. Warnock (1950)
There are numerous problems in fluid mechanics that can be solved us-
ing theoretical and/or numerical models. However, there are many more
problems that require solution using an empirical approach based on exper-
imental data. Coastal engineers need a working knowledge of experimental
modeling techniques so they can (1) interpret and utilize the results of
other investigators, and (2) plan and execute their own experiments in the
laboratory (Munson , et al. 1990).
The basis of all physical modeling is the idea that the model behaves
in a manner similar to the prototype it is intended to emulate. Thus, a
properly validated physical model can be used to predict the prototype
under a specified set of conditions. This important concept allows us to
perform model studies to obtain information that will aid in the design of
the prototype, and therefore, avoid costly mistakes. By the same token, a
wise engineer doesn' t assume that model studies will provide answers to all
questions, and the engineer recognizes that it is wasteful to conduct a model
study if the results can be adequately predicted by theory (Langhaar 1951).
Finally, we must keep in mind that there is a possibility that physical model
results may not be indicative of prototype behavior, so it is important to
minimize this possibility by careful model design and validation, careful
testing of the model, and careful interpretation of model predictions.
This chapter reviews the physical basis on which we justify conducting
hydraulic models at reduced scale, and it provides the necessary background
for deriving appropriate scaling relationships for hydraulic physical models.
52 CHAPTER 3. PRINCIPLES OF SIMILITUDE
3.1 The Concept of Similitude

Ideally, a properly designed laboratory model should behave in all respects
like a controlled (usually miniature) version of the prototype. In a fluid flow
model this similar behavior includes the velocity, acceleration, and mass
transport of the fluid and the resultant forces that the fluid flow exerts on
Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in Coastal Engineering Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
solid bodies and boundaries.

Similitude is achieved when all major factors influencing reactions are
in proportion between prototype and model, while those factors that are
not in proportion throughout the modeled domain are so small as to be
insignificant to the process.
Requirements for similarity in coastal hydraulic models are established

on the basis of dynamical considerations, dimensional analysis, and differ-
ential equations . These requirements can be either criteria of similitude or
conditions of similarity . The difference between the two is significant.
Criteria of similitude are imposed by physical relationships between
parameters . They are mathematical conditions that must be met by the
ratios of certain parameters between prototype and model, and they cannot
be altered without altering the underlying physical assumptions. Similitude
criteria are also referred to as scale laws.
Conditions of similarity , on the other hand, are conditions that the
experimenter chooses in order to make the physical model reproduce satis-
factory results. These conditions may include one or more similitude criteria
along with several conditions determined by observation or intuition.
A fundamental truth in analytical, physical, or numerical modeling is:
You cannot design a suitable model unless you understand' the

basic underlying physics/theory of what you are studying.
Langhaar (1951).
The importance of the above quote cannot be overstated. Because selection
of criteria and conditions of similitude requires physical insight, a poor
understanding of the system's physics can still lead to a functioning model
that produces incorrect (but often believable) results.
Model similitude can be established by a number of different methods.
• Similitude by Calibration . This is the oldest method,

dating back to physical models of the aqueducts of Rome.
Similitude conditions are obtained by calibrating a scale
model until it achieves reasonable reproduction of condi-
tions known to have existed in the past. Calibration is
1 "Understand" in this context means that we are aware of the primary physical
mechanisms and their interaction in the phenomenon , but we lack knowledge of the
details of the interaction.
3.1. THE CONCEPT OF SIMILITUDE 53
a lengthy trial and error method that requires a signifi-

cant knowledge of past prototype behavior. The calibra-
tion method is most useful for complex situations that have
a large number of variables, rendering it unfit for dimen-
sional analysis . Similitude requirements for movable-bed
models are sometimes established by this method.
• Similitude by Differential Equations . If the differ-

ential equations governing a process are known, and if
the equations have been shown to be sufficiently accurate,
then similitude requirements can be determined directly
from the equations by casting them into a dimensionless

form. The dimensionless parameters in the equations pro-
vide the transfer relationships between the prototype and
model, and often the important parameters can be recog-
nized from the equations2. It is not necessary to solve the
equations for specific boundary conditions; this is the task
of the physical model. This method is sometimes referred
to as inspectional analysis.
• Similitude by Dimensional Analysis . Dimensional

analysis can be used in some cases to provide a complete set
of dimensionless products constructed from the pertinent
process variables. Similitude by dimensional analysis re-
quires that the dimensionless products have the same value
in the prototype as in the model. When this is not possible,
those products thought to be most important must be kept
constant. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2, physical
insight into the process is essential in correctly determining
those products used to establish scaling requirements.
• Similitude by Scale Series. Several models constructed

at different scales can be operated to aid in establishing
similarity relationships and to identify scaling effects. This
method is useful when extensive prototype data are not
available, or when attempting to establish scaling criteria
for a complex physical process. Care must be taken when
analyzing model results, particularly when extrapolating
model results to prototype scale. Thoughtful analysis of
potential scale effects between model and prototype must
be performed.
2The same similarity principles extend to mathematical calculations . By determining

appropriate dimensionless products , the number of calculations can be reduced.
3.2 Requirements of Similitude

Physical model studies can provide both qualitative and quantitative in-
formation. For example, ground-up coal can be used as a movable tracer
in a harbor model molded in concrete to give a qualitative description of
sediment paths within the flow regime. The same model, however, provides
quantitative information on short wave penetration through the harbor en-

trance.
Requirements of similitude will vary with the problem being studied and
the degree of accuracy desired in model reproduction of prototype behavior.
Usually, quantitative information is sought from the physical model, and it
is common to classify models on the basis of the quantitative information

they provide and the degree of similarity they have with the prototype.
Completely similar models are models in which the values of all relevant
dimensionless parameters (i.e., the complete set of dimensionless products)
in the prototype are maintained in the model. A prerequisite for complete
similarity is that the model be geometrically similar to the prototype. Other
types of models are kinematically similar models and dynamically similar
models. These types of similarity will be discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Scale Factors

Correspondence between prototype and model parameters is denoted by the
scale ratio or simply the scale. A frequently used convention is to define
the scale ratio as follows:
The Scale Ratio is the ratio of a parameter in the prototype

to the value of the same parameter in the model.
Symbolically, this is represented as

_ Xp _ Value of X in Prototype
NX X,n Value of X in Model (3.1)
where NX is the prototype-to-model scale ratio of the parameter X, and
the subscripts p and m represent prototype and model , respectively.
This definition of scale ratio is not universally accepted, and in some
instances the scale ratio is defined as the reciprocal of the above definition.
However , the definition of scales given by Eqn . 3.1 is preferred because it
usually results in scales that have a value greater than unity. For example,
if a model is scaled such that 1 m in the model represents 25 m in the
prototype , the length scale ratio is given as
NL lm =25
Lm
3.2. REQUIREMENTS OF SIMILITUDE 55
Many scale ratios cannot be chosen independently , but are instead a

derived result of other selected scales . For instance , the scale ratio for area
in a model directly depends on the length scale because area has units of
length squared . In terms of scale ratios this is represented as
2 z
1VL Z
NA Am LPZ
mUP
/ )
Likewise , flow velocity has dimensions of length divided by time, so the

scale for velocity can be derived as
VP
Nv= // L \) l ( l NLINt
Vm= \t^ m - (Lm/ tP
This example illustrates that scale ratios can be expressed as products of

other scale ratios as determined from the dimensional units of the variable
in question.
I I
77
The partial differential equation for a uniform vibrating string under constant
tension is given as:
.9217
8t2 - (pA) 8x2

where
t] - string displacement [t = n (x, t)]
t - time
x - coordinate parallel to the motionless string
R - string tension
p - material density
A - string cross-sectional area
We can nondimensionalize the vibrating string equation by defining the nondi-
mensional variables
_ x _ t
n= Zn; x X; t T
where
Z - characteristic vibration amplitude

X - characteristic string length
T - characteristic time
and substituting them into the differential equation to give
a ( 8(z ii) ) = ( R a a(Zq

T T) TA a(X1) a(Xi)
a(T i) 5(__
or
(TT) 8i2 -
( p R ) (X2) ai2
Rearranging produces a nondimensional differential having one nondimensional
constant term, i.e.,

a2 n _ RT a2i
ate pAX 2 ai2

Similitude requires that the nondimensional constant must have the same value
in the model as in the prototype, or,
pAX 2 fl pAX
CRT2) RT22
which is rearranged to give
\Rml .Tm/2 (pm) (Am) \Xm/2
In terms of scale ratios , the expression for the time scale (NT) required to model
vibrating strings of differing length and cross-sectional area can now be given as
NT = Nx NPNA
NR
3.2.2 Geometric Similarity

Our world has many examples of items that are geometrically-scaled re-
productions of larger items. Examples include model car and airplane kits,
children's furniture, and dolls. All of these items share the characteris-
tic that all their geometric dimensions represent the original dimensions
reduced by a common factor.
Geometric similarity exists between two objects or systems if the

ratios of all corresponding linear dimensions are equal. This
relationship is independent of motion of any kind and involves
only similarity in form (Warnock 1950).
Most scale models are geometrically similar , and this certainly aids in visual
recognition of processes as they occur in the model.
Geometrically similar models are also known as geometrically undis-
torted models. Geometrically undistorted models are models in which
the vertical and horizontal scales are the same, and they represent the
true geometric reproduction (usually a miniature version) of the prototype.
Geometric scaling may include the finest geometric details, such as surface
roughness, which can significantly influence certain types of flows. However,
characterizing and reproducing every geometric detail of the prototype may
be very difficult or impossible, in which case the deviation from geometric
similitude must be carefully considered (Munson, et al. 1990).
Often some definite objectives can be met by departing from geometric

similarity and using a model in which the horizontal and vertical length
scales are different. The implications of geometrically dissimilar models are
discussed in a later section.
An equilibrium beach profile given by the equation
h = Ax2/3
is to be constructed in a wave tank using a length scale of NL = 25. Determine the

scale ratio of the shape parameter, A.
Taking the ratio of the equation for the equilibrium profile in the prototype to the
equation in the model value gives
h p = A p xp 2/3
h,,, = A,,, xm2/3
or
Expressing in terms of scale ratios , and rearranging yields

Nh
NA =
N2 /3
For a geometrically undistorted model, the vertical and horizontal length scales are
the same (i.e., Nh = N. = NL), so finally we get
NA = NL1/3 = ( 25)13 = 2.92
Therefore , the model shape factor can be found from Ap/A,,, = 2.92. ( Note in this
example that the equation for the equilibrium beach profile is nonhomogeneous in
nature , therefore , the same length dimensions used in the prototype must also be
used in the model , e.g., if Ap [=] m1/3 in the prototype , then A. [=] m1/3 in the
model.)
3.2.3 Kinematic Similarity

The term kinematic refers to the motion of a system. This motion can be
the motion of a solid body or the motion of fluid particles within a flow
regime. Motion is defined as any order differential of length with respect
to time3.
Kinematic similarity indicates a similarity of motion between par-
ticles in model and prototype. Kinematic similarity is achieved when the
ratio between the components of all vectorial motions for the prototype and
model is the same for all particles at all times (Hudson, et al. 1979). In a
geometrically similar model, kinematic similarity gives particles paths that
are geometrically similar to the prototype.
Example 3.3. Kinematically Similar Wave Motion
What is the scaling criterion necessary to have kinematically similar wave motion
I
for gravity waves whose length (small amplitude wave theory ) is given as the following
equation?
2
L = gT tanh (2rh )
where
L - wavelength
g - gravity
T - wave period
h - water depth
3Velocity is given by the first order differential , dXldt, acceleration by the second
order differential , d2X/dt2, etc.
First notice that the term 2a•h/L is dimensionless, so the ratio of the parameter
between prototype and model should be invariant in an undistorted model . This is
easily shown by taking the ratio as
(zih) P ( hp l Lm'\ Nh
frh \ - \ hml (LP / NL
(2 L Jm
which equals unity when the vertical scale ( Nh) and the wavelength scale4 (NL) are
the same (as they are in a geometrically undistorted model ). Because the 2ah/L
term is the same in prototype and model , then the hyperbolic tangent will also be
the same.
The scale relationship between the length and wave period scales is found from
the prototype-to- model ratio of wavelength, i.e.,

z
L = 21 tanh (2h
i)
^L=s2' tanh(2ih) ]
m
or
2
Lm - (9m) .TM)
This relationship is written in terms of scale factors as

z
NL=N9•NT
The gravity scale ratio in the above expression is, for all practical purposes , equal to
unity. Substitution for N9 in the kinematic relationship , and noting the wavelength
scale , NL, is the same as the generic length scale , NL, we see that kinematic similarity
in gravity wave motion requires
NL
NT=1_
The above relationship constitutes a criterion of similitude because it is con-
strained by the mathematical relationship for wave motion.
Note : Example 2 . 10 in Chapter 2 gave the equation of motion for a simple
pendulum as ( neglecting air resistance)
T=2K(Om) L
VL9
Forming the prototype -to-model ratio and noting that K (Om) is dimensionless, and
therefore invariant between model and prototype , yields
_LP -
T. (Lm) C ✓P
'The ratio NL is used to represent the wavelength scale to distinguish it from the
geometric length scale, NL.
or
NT= NL
N9
Thus, we see that the motion of water waves and simple pendulums scale according
to the same relationship . This arises from the fact that gravity is the major restoring
(external) force in both cases.
3.2.4 Dynamic Similarity

In the above example, the derived scale law for wave motion did not depend
on the properties of the prototype or model fluid. Therefore, the kinematic

law will hold if the model fluid has a different density than the prototype
fluid (provided that the fluid density is still within the assumptions invoked
in deriving the wavelength equation, particularly the inviscid flow assump-
tion). However, the forces exerted by the wave motion on an object or
boundary may not be in similitude in the model unless additional require-
ments are met related to the prototype and model fluid properties. These
additional requirements stem from the necessity of maintaining dynamic
similarity.
Dynamic similarity between two geometrically and kinematically

similar systems requires that the ratios of all vectorial forces in
the two systems be the same (Warnock 1950).
This definition means that there must be constant prototype-to-model ra-

tios of all masses and forces acting on the system.
The requirement for dynamic similarity arises from Newton's second law
that equates the vector sum of the external forces acting on an element to
the element's mass reaction to those forces, i.e.,
m dt _ Fn (3.3)
n
For fluid mechanics problems Newton 's second law can be written as
Fi = Fg+Fµ+Fu+Fe+Fpr (3.4)
where
Pi - inertial force (mass x acceleration)
F9 - gravitational force
Fµ - viscous force
Fo - surface tension force
Fe - elastic compression force
Fpr - pressure force
and the hat symbol represents vector quantities, i.e., both the magnitude
and direction of the force must be correctly represented.
Overall dynamic similarity requires that the ratio of the inertial forces
between prototype and model be equal to the ratio of the sum of all the
active forces, or
(i )p (F9+F, +Fo+Fe+Fpr)p
(F;)m (Fy+Fp+Fo+Fe+Fpr)m
Perfect similitude requires in addition to Eqn. 3.5 that all force ratios
between prototype and model also be equal. This requirement is written as
(Fi)p _ (F9)p _ (Fµ)p _ ( FO)p _ (Pe ) p _ (Fpr)p
(F=)m (F9)m (Pp).. (FO)m (Fe)m (Fpr)m
or in terms of scale ratios
NF.=Np =Np =Np =NFL=Np (3.7)
The additional requirement imposed by Eqn. 3.6 insures that the relative
influence of each force acting on a system remains in proportion between
prototype and model. If this were not the case, then results obtained at
one length scale ratio might not be transferable to different scales, thus
defeating one of the major advantages of small -scale model testing.
All but one of the force ratios given in Eqn . 3.6 must be considered as
being independent , with the final force ratio being determined once all the
others have been established . Pressure is usually taken as the dependent
ratio , and thus it is not used in the process of scale determination ( Warnock
1950).
No fluid is known that will satisfy all force ratio requirements given by
Eqn. 3 . 6 if the model is smaller than the prototype . So an important task
in scale model design is to relate the important force ratios and to provide
justification for neglecting the others (Hudson , et al. 1979).
The following example illustrates how forces in the model (e.g., armor
unit weight) are scaled up to prototype . Assume that the model was cor-
rectly scaled to provide dynamic similarity of forces important to breakwa-
ter stability. This topic is covered in Chapter 5.
Example 3.4. Dynamically Similar Breakwater Stability
A model breakwater is constructed of stones that have an average weight of 5

newtons ( 1.1 Ibs ). Tests with irregular waves reveal that the model breakwater fails
when significant wave height , H,,,o, equals 0.3 m. What weight of stone is necessary
to withstand a significant wave height of 10 m in the prototype? Assume the model
is geometrically similar to the prototype, and that the prototype stone has the same
specific weight as the model stone . (The effect of a salt water prototype and a fresh
water model is neglected in this example , but this effect is examined in Chapter 5.)
The length scale is determined as

NL
10 m = 33.3
(Hmo)m 0.3 m
The weight of the armor stone is the specific weight of the material multiplied by the
volume of the stone , or W. = rys • V,, /which can be expressed in scale ratios as
Nw. _ (W8)p = (rys)p , (V3)p = Ny. Nv.

(Ws)m (l's)m (Vs)m
Because the armor units are made of the same material in the model and proto-
type, we know that Nry, = 1. We also note that in a geometrically similar model,
the volume scale is simply the length scale cubed , i.e., Nv, = Ni . Making these
substitutions yields
Nw, = (W3)m = Ni = (33.3)3 = 37, 037
Therefore , the model tests indicate that the weight of armor stone needed to
resist significant wave heights of 10 m in the prototype is
(W3)p = 37,037 (Ws),,, = 37, 037 (5 N) = 185.2 kN (or 20. 8 short tons)
3.3 Hydraulic Similitude

3.3.1 Practical Aspects of Hydraulic Similitude
As mentioned in the previous section, being able to achieve complete simil-
itude where all the force ratios are constant and equal (Eqn. 3.6) is im-
possible except at prototype scale. However, knowing the requirements for
complete similitude allows us to evaluate the consequences of violating it.
In most problems a combination of experience and common sense will help
in choosing those ratios that need to be in similitude, and an important
3.3. HYDRAULIC SIMILITUDE 63
role for the model engineer is to justify departures from complete simili-
tude, and when possible, to make theoretical corrections to compensate for
lack of complete similarity (Langhaar 1951).
Munson, et al. (1990) commented that most engineering studies involve
simplifying assumptions, and it is necessary to strike a balance between
accuracy and keeping the problem simple. The degree of accuracy that
must be sought from a physical model is governed by the objective of the

study. If the model is intended to examine general trends rather than
precise details, then some variables can be neglected if they are thought
to be unimportant relative to the primary physical mechanisms involved in
the problem.
In addition, the model engineer needs to be aware of forces that are

negligible in the prototype, but which can have considerable influence in
the model. For example, surface tension and surface roughness may have
small consequence in the prototype, but they might become very significant
contributors to hydraulic processes in a very small scale model. When this
occurs, the model is said to have a scale effect.
Scale effects can also occur anytime the scale ratio of a physical param-
eter does not maintain the same value over the entire domain of the model.
This may result from too wide a range of flow conditions being simulated in
the model. The best guard against scale effects is to build the scale model
as large as possible. However, this tactic does not absolve the engineer from
the responsibility of examining potential scale effects.
3.3.2 Specific Hydraulic Criteria

Experience indicates that almost any major problem can be simplified into
the interplay of two major forces. This allows the similitude criteria to be
developed theoretically ( Warnock 1950 ). Several well known criteria for
fluid flow model investigations have been developed based on the assump-
tion that two forces dominate the flow while the other forces are minor.
Inertial forces are always present in flow problems , so inertia needs to
be balanced by one of the other forces given in Eqn . 3.6. The first step in
this development is to express each of the forces in terms of their physical
units. Thus,
F; = mass x acceleration 5 = (pL3)(V2/L) = pL2V2

Fy = mass x gravitational acceleration = pL3g
SFor the derivation , acceleration is taken to be a convective acceleration , such as

u(8u/8x ), and it is represented as V2/L. Later it will be seen that convective and
temporal accelerations are related by the Strouhal number, and this provides a familiar
relationship between V , L, and t.
gi anc e x area = p (V/L)L2 = µV L

Fµ = viscosity x d dist
Fo = unit surface tension x length = DL

Fe = modulus of elasticity x area = EL2
Fp, = unit pressure x area = pL2
where
- fluid density
- length
- velocity
- time
- gravitational acceleration
- dynamic viscosity
- surface tension
- modulus of elasticity
- pressure
The ratio of the inertial force to any other force provides the relative
influence of the two forces in the flow situation. Requiring that the force
ratio be the same in the model as in the prototype leads to a similitude
criterion for each of the force ratios. These are derived in the following
sections.
Froude Criterion
A parameter that expresses the relative influence of inertial and gravity

forces in a hydraulic flow is given by the square root of the ratio of inertial
to gravity forces, i.e.,
V inertial force _ JpL2V2 _ V

(3.8)
gravity force pL3g gL
which is called the Froude Number. A physical interpretation of the

Froude number is that it gives the relative importance of inertial forces
acting on a fluid particle to the weight of the particle (Munson, et al.
1990). The Froude number is also commonly represented as the square of
Eqn. 3.8, i.e., (V2/gL).
Requiring that the Froude number be the same in the model as in the
prototype, i.e.,
VfV9-T ) P 741 ) '.

leads to
(3.10)
Vm 9m/ \Lm
Expressing in terms of scale ratios , and rearranging gives
Nv
=1 or NF,.=1 (3.11)
Ny
- NL
Equation 3.11 is the Froude model criterion for modeling flows in
which the inertial forces are balanced primarily by the gravitational forces6,
which happens to be most flows with a free surface. The majority of hy-
draulic models in coastal engineering are scaled according to the I4oude

model law, consequently, it is usually the most important criterion to be
considered when designing a coastal scale model.
Reynolds Criterion
When viscous forces dominate in a hydraulic flow, the important parameter

is the ratio of inertial to viscous forces given by
inertial force - pL2V2 pLV
( 3 . 12 )
viscous force pVL p
which is known as the Reynolds Number. A physical interpretation of
the Reynolds number is that it gives the relative importance of the inertial
force on a fluid particle to the viscous force on the particle. Reynolds first
used this number to distinguish between laminar and turbulent flows.
Similitude is achieved when Reynolds number is the same in the model
as in the prototype, i.e.,
or
(p1, P \pµV )m
(3.13)
(3.14)
Cup / \Lm/ \pm/ M.
In terms of scale ratios, the Reynolds model criterion is
Nv NLNP _ 1
- oNRe = 1 (3 . 15)
Nµ
The Reynolds scale law is intended for modeling flows where the viscous
forces predominate. Examples include laminar boundary layer problems
and forces on cylinders with low Reynolds numbers.
6This applies to most water waves, hence the term gravity waves because gravity is
the primary restoring force.
Weber Criterion
The relative influence of surface tension is given by the ratio of inertia forces
to surface tension forces, i.e.,
inertial force _ pL2V2 _ pV2L

(3.16)
surface tension force aL v
which is known as the Weber Number. Surface tension may become

important if there is an interface between two fluids and the surface tension
force on a fluid particle is significant in comparison to the inertial force being
applied to the particle. Examples include flow of thin films of liquid and
air bubbles entrained in the water column.

When surface tension forces predominate, the Weber model crite-
rion is found by equating the prototype and model Weber numbers and
rearranging to get
(3.17)
(Pm/ (Vm)2 Lm/ (Olm
which is given in terms of scale ratios as
NP (NV )2 NL - 1
or NWe = 1 (3 . 18)
No
Surface tension effects are seldom encountered in coastal engineering
problems in the prototype, but they may be involved with some phenomena
when reduced in a scale model (Hudson, et al. 1979). Therefore, it is
important to select linear scales that avoid potential surface tension scale
effects.
Cauchy Criterion
An index of the relative importance of inertial forces to compressive forces
is given by the ratio of inertial to elastic forces, i.e.,
inertial force _ pL2 V 2 _ pV 2 _ pV 2

(3.19)
elastic force EL E E
which is known as the Cauchy Number . This number is important in
studies where the inertial forces are large enough to cause changes in fluid
compressibility. (Sometimes the Cauchy number is defined as the square
root of the form given by Eqn . 3.19.)
The Cauchy number is related to the Mach Number (V/c) because
the speed of sound in a fluid is given by c = E/p. This gives
z
Mat = PE = Ca (3.20)
The Mach number is used in studies of air flow having high velocities.
Equating the prototype value of the Cauchy number with the model
value results in the Cauchy modeling criterion , expressed in scale ratios

as
2 =
N,Nv
1 or Nca=1 (3.21)
This criterion also has little application in coastal engineering problems

involving fluid flow because the fluid can usually be considered incompress-
ible. A possible exception might be the force on a structure caused by
compression of air trapped by a breaking wave.
The Cauchy similitude criterion is important in the design of structural
models where elastic forces are important . For example , we apply the
Cauchy criterion when scaling the elastic properties of mooring lines for a
floating body subjected to hydrodynamic loading in a wave model. This
aspect of Cauchy similitude is developed in Chapter 5.
Euler Criterion
Although pressure is usually taken as the dependent force in Eqn. 3.6, it

is possible to have situations in which pressure forces are the dominant
force acting on the flow. If this is the case , the Euler Number gives an
indication of the relative importance of pressure and inertia, i.e.,
pressure force _ pL2 _ p

( 3 . 22 )
inertial force pL2V2 pVz
The Euler model criterion is found by equating prototype and model
values of the Euler number, i.e.,
( 3 . 23 )
( PVz/p - \PVz/m
or
P )2
(3.24)
(Pm/ - (Pm) (V.
which is given in terms of scale ratios as
N
p z = 1 or NE,, = 1 (3.25)
Np NV2
Strouhal Number
Inertial forces in fluid flows can be caused by two types of acceleration.

Convective accelerations are accelerations due to different fluid velocities at
different locations in the flow field, and they are represented mathematically
by terms such as u(Ou/Ox) or v(Ou/Oy). Temporal (or local) accelerations
are changes in flow velocity at a point that occur in time. They represent
the unsteadiness of the flow, and can be expressed mathematically by terms
such as Ou/Ot or OvlOt. In terms of their physical units the inertial forces
due to acceleration can be expressed as
Temporal inertial force = (pL3)(Vlt)

Convective inertial force = (pL3)(V2IL)

The relative importance of the temporal inertial force to the convective
inertial force is given as
temporal inertial force _ (pL3)(V/t) _ L

(3.26)
convective inertial force (pL3)(V2/L) V t
which is referred to as the Strouhal Number. This dimensionless param-

eter is likely to be important in unsteady, oscillating flows where the period
of oscillation is given by the variable t. The Strouhal number often is given
as wL/V where frequency of oscillation has replaced period of oscillation.
If we attempt to create a criterion of similitude by requiring the Strouhal
number to be the same in the model as in the prototype, we get
(Vt )L
p - (Vt
L
m
(3.27)
or
\LL-/=(
In terms of scale ratios, we get
LP)LP
(t. /: (3.28)
NL
NvN 1 or Nst = 1 (3.29)
t
which simply states that the velocity scale ratio is equal to the length
scale ratio divided by the time scale ratio . This is the same definition for
velocity scale that arises from consideration of the fundamental dimensions
of velocity.
Therefore , in unsteady, oscillating flows it is important to maintain
similarity of the Strouhal number , and this is achieved by basing the time
scale of the motion on the period of oscillation related to the flow . For wave
motion , the period of oscillation obviously is the wave period.
Importance of Froude Scaling
For practically all coastal engineering problems (and at least 90 percent of

all hydraulic flow problems), the forces associated with surface tension and
elastic compression are relatively small, and thus, can be safely neglected
(Warnock 1950). This leaves selection of an appropriate hydrodynamic scal-
ing law to an evaluation of whether gravity or viscous forces are dominant

in the phenomenon. For this reason ...
... the Froude and Reynolds number are important to

coastal engineers because similarity of one of these num-
bers, combined with geometric similarity, provides the

necessary conditions for hydrodynamic similitude in an
overwhelming majority of coastal models.
The scale requirements for any physical property can be derived for a
given model scaling criterion by dimensional considerations and/or New-
ton's 2nd Law. Usually, the derived scale ratio will be expressed in terms
the scale ratios of various independent parameters; however, the ratio can
also include other derived ratios if so desired.
The Froude similarity criterion is given by

I
Nv = N9 NL
Because velocity is dimensionally length / time (and also from consideration of pre-
serving the Strouhal number ), the scale ratio for velocity is dimensionally equivalent
to NL/Nt. Substituting into the Froude criterion and rearranging yields
Nt = NL Froude time scale
For all practical purposes , the gravitational scale is unity (i.e., N9 = 1), and the
Froude time scale is simplified to the common relationship
Nt=IN-L
The Froude time scale can also be expressed in terms of the prototype and model
fluid parameters by noting the scale for specific weight is given as
N.y = NPN9
which can be solved for N9 and substituted into the time scale equation to get
NPNL
N^ =
V N7
For the time scale and any kinematic parameters, this substitution is meaningless
because NP/N,, is equal to N9 (which usually is equal to unity ). However , it is useful
to express the scale ratios of dynamic scale parameters in terms of prototype and
model fluid properties because there are situations when the model and prototype
fluids are different ( e.g., fresh and salt water), and we need to determine appropriate
force scaling factors.
The Reynolds similitude time scale is easily found by substituting Nv = NL/Nt
into the Reynolds criterion

Nv NL NP
N,,
and rearranging to get
N, = (NN2NP Reynolds time scale

µ
Table 3 . 1 lists the derived scale ratios for common physical flow parameters for
both Froude and Reynolds scaling criteria.
Reynolds similitude is seldom invoked for most models of coastal pro-

cesses , instead it is recognized that gravity forces predominate in free-
surface flows; and consequently, most models are designed using the Froude
criterion. Nevertheless, the engineer must make efforts to reduce the effects
of viscosity in the model, otherwise the dissimilar viscous effects will con-
stitute a scale effect. For example, viscous bottom friction in small scale
harbor models will be significantly greater than in the prototype. There-
fore, waves that must travel over long distances in the model will undergo a
decrease in wave height greater than what occurs in the prototype. For this
particular problem the solution is either to avoid lengthy wave propagation
distances in the model, or to theoretically correct for the frictional losses
in the model by beginning with a larger initial wave height.
Normally, we can discount viscous effects in harbor models provided the
Reynolds number (based on flow depth) is greater than 1 x 104 (Hydraulic
Laboratory Techniques 1980). The same can be said for flow through the
pores of a breakwater, but in this case the length parameter in the Reynolds
number should be the average void dimension, and the Reynolds number
should be above 3 x 104 (Hudson, et al. 1979).
Generally, Reynolds numbers above 1 x 104 are in the range of turbulent
flow where the viscous force becomes independent of Reynolds number.
Table 3.1: Similitude Ratios for Froude and Reynolds Similarity
Characteristic Dimension Froude Reynolds

Geometric
Length [L] NL NL
Area [L2] NL2 NL2
Volume [L3] NL3 NL

Kinematic
Time [T] Ni12Np12Nry 1/2 NN NpNµ 1

1'2N. "2
Velocity [LT-1] Ni'2Np NE 1Np 1Nµ
Acceleration [LT-2] N.yNN1 NL 3NP 2 Nµ

[L3T-1] "2N.1y/2
Discharge NLl2NP NLNP 1Nµ
Kinematic Viscosity
NL/2NP1/2N71/2 NP 1Nµ
[L2T-1]
Dynamic
Mass [M] NLNP NLNP
Force [MLT-2] NLN.y NP 1Nµ
Mass Density [ML-3] Np Np
Specific Weight [ML-2T-2] N.y NL3NP 1Nµ

N'2NP^2N.ly/2 Nµ
Dynamic Viscosity [ML-1T-1]
Surface Tension [MT-2] NLNy NL 1NP 1Nµ
Volume Elasticity [ML-'T -2] NLN.y NL 2NP 1Nµ
Pressure and Stress [ML-1T-2] NLN7 NL 2NP 1Nµ
Momentum , Impulse NL'2N112N7112

[MLT-1] NLNµ
Energy, Work [ML2T-2] NNNy NLNP 1 Nµ

N712NP 1/ 2 N'2
Power [ML2T-3] NL 1 Np 2 Nµ
In some flow models it is necessary to add artificial boundary roughness

elements to assure the flow boundary layer is not laminar by increasing the
boundary Reynolds number into the fully rough range.
I
Example 3.6. Drag on a Submerged Body
For coastal flow problems , the hydrodynamics are usually scaled according to the
Froude modeling criterion . What additional requirement must be met by the scaling
so that the drag forces on a submerged body are also reasonably well simulated in
the model?
Drag forces in a fluid are usually evaluated using the drag-force equation
FD = CDPAV2 (3.30)
where
FD - drag force
CD - drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number and
Froude number
p - fluid density
A - frontal area of body
V - flow velocity
The total drag force is often thought of as a combination of "skin friction drag"
due to viscous shear stresses between the fluid and the solid body, and "form drag"
due to pressure differences around the solid body. Skin friction drag is a function of
Reynolds number, whereas form drag depends on Froude number.
The scaling criterion resulting from Eqn. 3.30 is easily written as
NFD = NcD NPNANv
From the column for Froude scale in Table 3 . 1 we can substitute equivalent
expressions for the force, area , and velocity scale ratios in the above equation giving
N,
NL3 N, = NcDNP(NL2) (NL
NP
which reduces to the requirement
NcD = 1
Thus, it is seen that the drag forces on submerged bodies will be reasonably well
scaled in a Froude model provided that the drag coefficient is the same in the model
as in the prototype. This requires that the model Reynolds number be high enough
(above 1 x 10 ) so that the drag coefficient is independent of Reynolds number,
implying that skin friction drag is so small that it can be considered negligible.
In studies where skin friction drag is important , such as drag on a ship 's hull, a
Froude-scaled model is operated and the total drag is measured . Skin friction drag is
analytically calculated using boundary layer theory and subtracted from the measured
total drag to give a good approximation of the form drag . The form drag is scaled to
prototype dimensions using the Froude scaling relationship , and the prototype skin
friction drag is calculated and added to the form drag to give the total drag on the
vessel.
Example 3.7. Free-Fall Terminal Velocity
FD,
1
FDm
4
Prototype Model
Two smooth balls of equal weight but different diameters are dropped from a bal-
loon. The larger ball has a diameter that is 3 times the diameter of the smaller ball.
Knowing that "terminal velocity" is the velocity where the drag force balances the
gravitational force, use the drag force equation ( Eqn. 3.30) to determine the ratio of
larger ball terminal velocity to smaller ball terminal velocity. (Assume fully turbulent
flow conditions.)
Equating the gravitational force (W) to the drag force (FD) as given by the drag
force equation gives
W = CD pAV `
The prototype-to-model ratio of the above equation is
(W = CD pAV2)p
(W = CDpAV2)m
or in terms of scale ratios
Nw = NCDNP(NL)2(Nv)2
where NA has been replaced with (NL)2. The velocity scale ratio is found by substi-
tuting the following scale ratios
• NP = 1, because both balls are falling in the same fluid.

• NCD = 1, because the flow is assumed to be fully turbulent so the
drag coefficient for a sphere is considered constant.
• Nw = 1, because the balls weigh the same.
• NL = 3/1 = 3, as stated above.
which results in
1 Nv=3=Vm
If the smaller ball's terminal velocity is 80 m/s , the terminal velocity of the larger
ball will be
V _ Vm = 80
M/s = 26.7 m/s
r 3 3
Note that the balls would fall with the same terminal velocity (Nv = 1) if the
larger ball is 9 times heavier than the small ball (Nw = 9).
If it were possible to satisfy both Froude and Reynolds model criteria in

the same model , then most fluid phenomena that occur in coastal engineer-
ing could be physically modeled with considerable accuracy (Hudson, et al.
1979). The criterion for satisfying both Froude and Reynolds model criteria
simultaneously is found by equating the two criteria 7 as shown below:
NV NvNLNP (3.31)
N9 NL Nv
which can be reduced to
Nµ = 1/2 NL'2 NP (3.32)
By noting that the scale ratio of kinematic viscosity is given as N„ _

Na/NP, and realizing that the force of gravity will be the same in the
model as in the prototype (i.e., N9 = 1), the criterion becomes
NV' = N3/2 (3.33)

7Because each criterion is expressed as a combination of scale ratios equal to unity,
they must be equivalent if both criteria are simultaneously satisfied.
The real difficulty in satisfying this model criterion is finding a model

fluid that has the appropriate kinematic viscosity. For example, with a
geometric length scale of NL = 10, the model fluid must have kinematic
viscosity that is about 1/30th of the prototype fluid. Assuming the proto-
type fluid is water, no fluid exists that will satisfy this criterion.
I Example 3.8. Centrifuge Scale Model

A model with length scale of NL = 5 is to be constructed for a fluid -flow problem
I
in which viscosity and gravity are equally important restoring forces . In addition, the
same fluid must be used in the model as in the prototype . In order to conduct the
model at less than full scale , it is proposed to test the model in a large centrifuge.
Determine the required centrifugal acceleration (expressed in g's) of the cen-
trifuge . ( 1 g equals the acceleration of gravity). Also determine the prototype-to-
model mass scale ratio , time scale ratio , and force scale ratio.
The requirement for satisfying both Froude and Reynolds similitude criteria was
given in Eqn. 3.32 as
Nµ = N912 N13/2 Np
If the same fluid is used in the model as in the prototype , then N,, = N, = 1, and
the above criterion yields
= 1 = 1 _ 1
N9 (NL)3 (5)3 125
from which the required centrifuge acceleration can be found as
gp = 1
gm = 125 gp
gm 125
Referring to Table 3. 1, the mass scale ratio is found as
N. = Np(NL)3
= (1)(5)3 = 125
The time scale can be found by using the expression from Table 3.1 for either the
Froude or Reynolds similitude because they must both be the same if both scaling
criteria are met. Using the Froude time scale, and noting N- = NN9,
NT N9NP N 1,(NL)3 = (NL)2 = ( 5) 2 = 25
Finally, the force scale ratio is found using either expression listed in Table 3.1,
in this case , Reynolds force scale, i.e.,
NF= (Nµ)2 = 1 = 1
Np 1
Centrifuges are used to physically model foundation problems , such as liquefac-
tion, and flow through porous media.
3.3.3 Hydraulic Model Distortion

Anytime one or more of the established similitude criteria are not satis-
fied in a model, the model is referred to as a distorted model. This strict
definition of model distortion means that in an undistorted model all the di-
mensionless pi-terms determined from the important independent variables
of the problem must be the same in the model as in the prototype.

For fluid flow problems of interest to coastal engineers, similitude of
all dimensionless pi-terms is impossible. Even when considering only the
Froude and Reynolds criteria, hydraulic models conducted at reduced scale
most likely will not satisfy both criteria simultaneously. Therefore, by
the strict definition, practically all coastal hydraulic models are distorted
models.
Hydraulic model engineers have chosen to relax the definition for model
distortion by limiting the term "distortion" to consideration of only geo-
metric similitude, i.e.,
Models that maintain geometric similitude are referred to as
undistorted models.
Whereas...
Distorted models are physical models in which the horizontal
length scale and the vertical length scales are different. In other
words, a distorted model is not geometrically similar to the
prototype situation.
Throughout the remainder of this text, the terms "distorted model" and
"undistorted model " will conform to the above geometric definition.
In coastal engineering distorted models usually have a larger horizon-
tal scale than vertical scale. This has the effect of lessening the required
horizontal space needed for the model while increasing slopes in the model.
Distorted models may be considered when departure from geometric
similitude serves some definite objective such as scaled depth or velocities;
however, the results from a distorted model are limited only to consideration
of this objective (Warnock 1950). For example, river flow models often
need to be constructed using distorted length scales because the physical
dimensions of a typical river cross-section would geometrically scale in such
a way that the model water depth may be less than a few centimeters
deep. In an undistorted model this would allow surface tension effects in
the model to play a significant role in the process, thus invalidating model
results . In this case, the objective of model distortion is to avoid surface
tension effects; however, interpretation of model results will become more
difficult because of scale effects introduced by the geometric distortion.
Distorted models offer several advantages:
• Space requirements of the model are reduced.

• Smaller models allow for reduced operation costs.
• Water slopes are exaggerated in the model, and thus, easier
to measure.
• Additional modeling criteria, such as needed for sediment
transport in a movable-bed model, may be accommodated.
Disadvantages of distorted models include:
• Velocities may not be correctly reproduced in magnitude

and direction.
• Some flow details will not be in similitude.

• Wave refraction and diffraction may not be correctly re-
produced.
• There are unfavorable psychological effects on the observer
accustomed to viewing geometrically correct models.
• There is potential for unknown scale effects to influence
model results.
• Determining the appropriate degree of distortion can often
be difficult.
Distortion in a physical model may arise from consideration of the dif-

ferential equations governing the process, from empirical observations that
arise from comparison of field data, or from results of a scale series (geo-
metrically similar tests conducted at different scales).
Munson, et al. (1990) stated that the success of using distorted models
depends largely on the skill and experience of the model engineer and the
interpretation of results obtained from the distorted model. Geometrically
distorted hydraulic models are widely used, and the design and operation
of distorted hydraulic models are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
Example 3.9. Wave Motion in Distorted Models

I
The scaling requirements for wave motion in geometrically undistorted models was
shown in Example 3.3. Requirements for distorted model wave action are developed
in a similar manner using the linear theory equation for wavelength given as
L = 92 tanh (ZLh ) (3.34)
where
L wavelength
9 gravity
T wave period
h water depth
The prototype- to-model ratio of wavelength is given as

[L = 211 tanh (aih)

P
r 1
IL = s2 tanh (ZLh)] m
or
2 tanh (!;hL)
LP _ 9P TP l `\ Lr
m)
Lm gm Tm/ tanh(2L-
In terms of scale ratios ( noting that Nt # Nh and using the definitions Nh = hp/hm
and NN = LP/Lm)8 we get
I s,thm
2 tanh \ N L,,, J
Nj = N9 • NT • tank (znh,,.)
L_
Examination of Eqn . 3.35 reveals that the horizontal wavelength scale is a function
of model depth-to-wavelength ratio (h,,,/Lm). Because this ratio is not constant over
a range of depths , the scaling is valid only for one constant depth and wavelength in
the distorted model.
However , if the wavelength is much greater than the depth , then the tanh func-
tions in Eqn . 3.35 approach the value of their arguments , and the equation simplifies
to
N{ = N9Nh NT (3.36)
which is the distorted scaling criteria for shallow water long waves. This result could
have been immediately obtained by forming the prototype -to-model ratio of shallow
water wavelength given by
L = Vg--
hT (3.37)
Note that the shallow water wavelength scaling ( Eqn. 3.36) is valid at arbitrary depths
provided that the wavelength remains much larger than depth. The physical reason
that distorted physical modeling of long waves (tidal models) is valid (while short
wave distorted models have problems ) stems from the fact that long waves have little
vertical acceleration of water particles . Correct reproduction of both horizontal and
vertical accelerations can only be achieved with a geometrically undistorted model.
sThe wavelength scale is denoted as NL to distinguish it from the undistorted geo-

metric length scale, NL.
Kinematic Scales. In Eqn . 3.36, Nt is the same as the horizontal length scale,
Nx; Nh is the same as the vertical length scale , Nz; and the wave period scale, NT,
is the same as the time scale , N. Making these substitutions and rearranging gives
the distorted long wave time scale in terms of the horizontal and vertical scales, i.e.,
No = NX (3.38)
N9Nz
The distorted long wave horizontal velocity scale ratio is found as
NU =
NX NX = NNz
4INgNZ
The horizontal acceleration scale ratio in a distorted long wave model is given as
Nu = N9Nz = N9Nz
Na = N` N N
x
Ny NZ
Finally, the distorted long wave horizontal discharge scale ratio is found by noting
the cross-sectional area scale is NzNX, so the volume scale is Nz(Nx)2, and
NQ = Nz(NX)2 = Nz(NX)2 = NX(N9) 112(Nz)3/2

Nt NX
N. NZ
The above example illustrates that distorted models can be useful in

coastal engineering. However, the distorted model designed to the above
guidance (Eqn. 3.36 or 3.38) is only useful for problems related to long wave
action.
3.4 References
Hudson , R. Y., Herrmann, F. A., Sager, R. A., Whalin, R. W., Keule-
gan, G. H., Chatham, C. E., and Hales, L. Z. 1979. "Coastal Hy-
draulic Models," Special Report No. 5, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Hydraulic Laboratory Techniques . 1980. US Department of the Inte-

rior, Water and Power Resources Service, US Government Printing
Office, Denver, Colorado.
Langhaar , H. L. 1951. Dimensional Analysis and Theory of Models,

John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Munson , B. R., Young , D. F., and Okiishi , T. H. 1990. Fundamen-

tals of Fluid Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Warnock, J. E. 1950. "Hydraulic Similitude," in Engineering Hydraulics,

edited by H. Rouse, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 136-176.

0003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in Coastal Engineering Downloaded from www.worldscientific.

"The practical application of similitude in hydraulic model test-

3.1 The Concept of Similitude

solid bodies and boundaries.

Requirements for similarity in coastal hydraulic models are established

You cannot design a suitable model unless you understand' the

• Similitude by Calibration . This is the oldest method,

a lengthy trial and error method that requires a signifi-

• Similitude by Differential Equations . If the differ-

from the equations by casting them into a dimensionless

• Similitude by Dimensional Analysis . Dimensional

• Similitude by Scale Series. Several models constructed

2The same similarity principles extend to mathematical calculations . By determining

3.2 Requirements of Similitude

quantitative information on short wave penetration through the harbor en-

is common to classify models on the basis of the quantitative information

3.2.1 Scale Factors

The Scale Ratio is the ratio of a parameter in the prototype

Symbolically, this is represented as

Many scale ratios cannot be chosen independently , but are instead a

Likewise , flow velocity has dimensions of length divided by time, so the

This example illustrates that scale ratios can be expressed as products of

8t2 - (pA) 8x2

Z - characteristic vibration amplitude

a ( 8(z ii) ) = ( R a a(Zq

constant term, i.e.,

ate pAX 2 ai2

\Rml .Tm/2 (pm) (Am) \Xm/2

3.2.2 Geometric Similarity

Geometric similarity exists between two objects or systems if the

Often some definite objectives can be met by departing from geometric

An equilibrium beach profile given by the equation

is to be constructed in a wave tank using a length scale of NL = 25. Determine the

Expressing in terms of scale ratios , and rearranging yields

NA = NL1/3 = ( 25)13 = 2.92

3.2.3 Kinematic Similarity

Example 3.3. Kinematically Similar Wave Motion

the prototype-to- model ratio of wavelength, i.e.,

This relationship is written in terms of scale factors as

3.2.4 Dynamic Similarity

on the properties of the prototype or model fluid. Therefore, the kinematic

Dynamic similarity between two geometrically and kinematically

This definition means that there must be constant prototype-to-model ra-

between prototype and model also be equal. This requirement is written as

(Fi)p _ (F9)p _ (Fµ)p _ ( FO)p _ (Pe ) p _ (Fpr)p

(F=)m (F9)m (Pp).. (FO)m (Fe)m (Fpr)m

or in terms of scale ratios

NF.=Np =Np =Np =NFL=Np (3.7)

Example 3.4. Dynamically Similar Breakwater Stability

A model breakwater is constructed of stones that have an average weight of 5

The length scale is determined as

Nw. _ (W8)p = (rys)p , (V3)p = Ny. Nv.

Nw, = (W3)m = Ni = (33.3)3 = 37, 037

3.3 Hydraulic Similitude

must be sought from a physical model is governed by the objective of the

In addition, the model engineer needs to be aware of forces that are

3.3.2 Specific Hydraulic Criteria

F; = mass x acceleration 5 = (pL3)(V2/L) = pL2V2

SFor the derivation , acceleration is taken to be a convective acceleration , such as

gi anc e x area = p (V/L)L2 = µV L

Fo = unit surface tension x length = DL

A parameter that expresses the relative influence of inertial and gravity

V inertial force _ JpL2V2 _ V