Environmental Fluid Mechanics (2005) 5: 325–340 © Springer 2005

DOI 10.1007/s10652-005-3258-1

A Quantitative Analysis of Energy Dissipation

among Three Typical Air Entrainment
Phenomena

ASHABUL HOQUEa,∗ and SHIN-ICHI AOKIb

a
Department of Mathematics, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi 6205, Bangladesh
b
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology,
Japan

Received 11 March 2004; accepted in revised form 5 March 2005

Abstract. This study investigates energy dissipation due to air bubble entrainment for
three typical phenomena; a hydraulic jump, a 2-D vertical plunging jet and a vertical cir-
cular plunging jet into water. A simple model is presented here which enables to estimate
the energy transformation and dissipation achieved by air bubbles quantitatively for three
above phenomena. The average rate of energy dissipation by air bubbles obtained from
the experimental data are 25%, 1.4%, and 2.15% with respect to total energy loss for the
hydraulic jump, 2-D vertical plunging jet and vertical circular plunging jet, respectively.

Key words: Breaking wave, energy dissipation, plunging liquid jet, potential energy,
void-fraction

Notation
C air concentration defined as the volume of air per unit volume of air
and water; it is also called void fraction,
d0 nozzle diameter (m),
d1 jet thickness (m) at plunge point,
Da ratio of energy dissipation rate due to entrained air,
Ed energy dissipation rate per unit area (J/(m2 s)) due to entrained air,
energy dissipation rate per unit depth (J/(m s)) due to entrained air,
EH rate of total energy dissipation per unit length (J/(m s)) in a stationary
hydraulic jump,
Ej upstream energy transport rate (J/(m s)) per unit width,
upstream energy transport rate (J/s),
EdT total energy dissipation rate (J/(m s)) per unit width,
total energy dissipation rate (J/s),
g gravity constant (m/s2 ),
h still water depth (m),
hG depth (m) of the center of gravity of air bubbles,
i integer,
∗
Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected]
326 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

q water discharge per unit width (m2 /s),

Qw water discharge (m3 /s),
Qau up-going air discharge (m3 /s),
Qad down-going air discharge (m3 /s),
r1 jet radius (m) at impingement point,
ra radial distance (m) from the jet’s centerline to the inner edge of the
void fraction distribution,
rb radial distance (m) from the jet’s centerline to the outer edge of the
void fraction distribution,
tr averaged release time (s),
T total measuring time (s),
V0 nozzle flow velocity (m/s),
V1 impact flow velocity (m/s),
Va volume of entrained air (m3 /m2 ) per unit area,
volume of entrained air (m3 /m) per unit length,
Vau up-going air volume,
Vad down-going air volume,
wr bubble rise velocity (m/s),
x distance along the flow direction (m), measured from the nozzle,
z distance (m) measured perpendicular to the channel bottom.
Greek Symbol

h water level rise (m) due to entrained air,

H head loss (m),

P E time averaged potential energy (J/m2 ) due to entrained air,
ρw water density (kg/m3 ).

1. Introduction
This study is motivated by a desire of assigning a model for the surf-zone
waves. We believe that air bubbles play an important role in the surf-zone
dynamics, including energy dissipation, wave set-up, wave run-up, and long
wave generation. To build-up a model for all these processes accurately, the
characteristics and influences of air bubbles in the surf zone have to be known
accurately. Several researchers applied the analogy between hydraulic jumps
and spilling breakers, and plunging jet flows and plunging breakers, respec-
tively (e.g., Refs. 6, 11, and 14). Some discussion on the role of air bubbles on
local hydrodynamics can be found in many papers. However, the number of
papers on surf-zone hydrodynamics is rather limited, especially when dealing
with both the air–water flow fields and the bubbles phase characteristics. The
reason of this may be the complexity phenomena.
Studies concerning air entrainment by plunging liquid jets summarized
in a recent review by Bin [1] and Chanson [5], in which they showed
that the nature of air entrainment process is dependent upon a number
of parameters including flow rate, jet surface turbulence and jet geometry.
With plunging jets, air entrainment causes a rise in water level by the liq-
uid displacement upwards and hence an increase in potential energy. The
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 327

inflow energy or kinetic energy is stored at first as potential energy formed

by air bubbles, which are driven into water and later released by the rising
air bubbles. Führböter [10] suggested that the entrained air cause a transfer
of energy into potential energy, but he did not give quantitative discussion
of the transferred energy. Several researchers (e.g., Refs., 2, 7, and 13) have
given an overview of the past research efforts on air entrainment in plung-
ing jet flows and pointed out the characteristics of entrained air in plung-
ing jet flows. To our best knowledge, there is only one paper on energy
dissipation by air bubbles in plunging liquid jet bubble column (Ref. 8).
They deduced the energy dissipation rate per unit volume by measuring the
length of mixing zone and their study was restricted only for plunging liq-
uid jet. However, the quantitative discussion of energy transformation and
dissipation due to air bubble entrainment was not been well investigated.
To investigate the energy transformation and dissipation quantitatively,
the experimental data of air concentration distributions for hydraulic jump,
2-D vertical and vertical circular plunging jets have been considered from
the literature and the experiments performed in this study. For quantitative
analysis of energy dissipation by air bubbles in plunging jet flows, a sim-
ple mathematical model has been developed. The purpose of the present
work is to clarify quantitatively how much percentage of the total upstream
energy is transferred into potential energy and dissipated by air bubbles.

2. A Simple Model Formulation

Entrained air bubbles and their detrainment through water surface are
sketched in Figure 1. The water level rises by
h above the initial still
water depth h because of the air balloon entrainment. The water level rise

h is expressed with the following formula as

h+
h

h = C(z) dz, (1)
0

where C(z) is the volumetric concentration of air, or void fraction, and the
z-axis is taken vertically from the seabed.
The increase in potential energy
PE due to air bubble entrainment can
be expressed as

h+
h
h

PE = ρw (1 − C(z))gz dz − ρw gz dz
0

h+
h  
0

h
= ρw g C(z) h + − z dz = ρw gVa hG , (2)
0 h
where ρw , hG and Va are the water density, the depth of the center of grav-
ity of air bubbles and the entrained air volume, respectively, and if the
328 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

(a) Air balloon Submerged

air balloon

∆h

(b) z wr
C(z)

∆h

Figure 1. Sketch of (a) water level rises by entrained air and (b) entrained and
detrained air bubbles through free surface.

density of air is disregarded. The depth of the center of gravity of air bub-
bles hG is defined as
 h+
h
zC(z)dz
hG = 0 h+
h . (3)
0 C(z)dz
In Equation (2), the potential energy increment is proportional not only
to the amount of air bubbles but also to the distance of center of grav-
ity of air volume. The air entrainment is an unsteady process, and during
the detrainment process, air bubbles will be released in atmosphere. Basi-
cally if air bubbles are added to a system, some work will be done on the
system that results in an increase in potential energy
P E. In a steady
state, this work must be supplied continuously by the flow, because the
same amount of energy will dissipate at the rate of air bubble detrainment.
Thus, the potential energy dissipation rate Ed through air bubble entrain-
ment/detrainment may be estimated as

PE
PE
Ed = = wr , (4)
tr hG
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 329

where tr and wr are the averaged release time and the rising velocity,
respectively. The rising velocity wr in Equation (4) is a function of bub-
ble size, and it is in the range 0.0002–0.41 m/s (Refs. 5 and 15). Chanson
[5] suggested that the turbulence would retard the bubble rise resulting in
smaller rising velocities that in still water, but no study has proved yet con-
clusively either an increase or a decrease of rising velocity. According to
visual observation with circular plunging jet flows, the rising velocity of
millimetric bubbles is roughly assumed to be constant, although the rate
of rise of air bubbles is not necessarily uniform in the upward direction.
In the present study wr = 0.25 m/s is assumed, because the average bubble
diameter was found nearly 2.5–3 mm in the experiments.

3. Experiments
3.1. APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTATION

Details of the experimental apparatus and procedure are reported by

Chanson and Brattberg [4] and Cumming and Chanson [7] for hydraulic
jump and 2-D vertical plunging jets, respectively. New experiments in cir-
cular vertical plunging jet flows were conducted in a 0.10 m wide, 0.75 m
deep and 2.0 m long flume. The nozzle was sharp-edged, being machined
with accuracy less than 0.1 mm and the water was supplied by a straight
circular vertical PVC pipe (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sketch of experimental setup.

330 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

The flow rate was measured with a volume per time technique. The error
on the discharge measurements was less than 2%. Air–water flow proper-
ties were measured with a single-tip conductivity probe: KanomaxTM Sys-
tem 7931 resistivity probe (inner electrode Ø = 0.1 mm). The electronics had
a response time less than 30 µs. The void fraction was calculated by analog
integration during 5 min.
Conductivity probe measurements were taken on the jet diameter through
the centerline. The displacement of the probes in the flow direction and
direction normal to the jet support were controlled by fine adjustment trav-
eling mechanisms. The error in the probe position was less than 0.2 mm
in each direction. The impact velocity V1 and water jet diameters d1 were
deduced from the following equations:

π π
Qw = V1 d12 = V0 d02 (Continuity equation), (5)
4 4
V12 V02
= + x1 (Bernoulli equation). (6)
2g 2g

Additional measurements were performed using a high-speed video camera.

3.2. DATA PROCESSING

The measurement principle of conductivity probe is based upon the differ-

ence in electrical resistivity between air and water. The air concentration
or void fraction C is defined as the time that the probe tip is in air with
respect to the total measuring time

ti
C= , (7)
i∈T
T

where i indicates an individual bubble,
t is time that probe tip is in air

and T is the total measuring time.

4. Application of Model
The model is applied to the experimental data of three typical phenomena
of air entrainment through free surface: a hydraulic jump, a 2-D vertical
and a vertical circular plunging jet. In the simplest view (Figures 3 and 4),
the flow at hydraulic jumps shows some similarities with a spilling breaker
(Refs. 9 and 14) and there are some similarities between plunging jets and
plunging breakers (Ref. 6).
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 331

Figure 3. Sketch of hydraulic jump and spilling breaker.

Figure 4. Sketch of 2-D vertical supported plunging jet and plunging breaker.

4.1. HYDRAULIC JUMP

Hydraulic jumps are among the most intriguing steady 1-D flow phenom-
ena that occur in nature. It is characterized by energy dissipation and air
entrainment. Consider a stationary hydraulic jump shown in Figure 3a.
The depth rises from d1 to d2 , and the velocity falls from V1 to V2 . The rate
of energy dissipation in a horizontal, frictionless and rectangular channels
of hydraulic jump is given by

(d2 − d1 )3
EH = ρw gq
H = ρw g(V1 d1 ) , (8)
4d2 d1
332 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

Figure 5. (a) Air concentration distribution (after Ref. 5); F r1 = 6.05, x1 = 0.89 m,
d1 = 0.017 m, V1 = 2.47 m/s, (b) Energy dissipation rate per unit length along
x-direction; F r1 = 6.05.

where
H = (d2 − d1 )3 /4d2 d1 shows the dissipation loss is positive only

if d2 > d1 , which is a requirement of the second law of thermodynamics
and q = V1 d1 ,
H, d1 , d2 , V1 , and ρw represent the water discharge per unit
width, the head loss, the upstream flow depth, the downstream flow depth,
the upstream flow velocity and the water density, respectively.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 333

The volume of entrained air over a unit length of x, Va , is computed

from the measured distribution of air concentration C(y) by using the fol-
lowing definition:

y0.7
Va = C(y) dy, (9)
0

where the choice of C = 0.70 is the pseudo-free-surface threshold criterion

and y0.7 is the air–water reference depth.
The potential energy increases due to air bubble entrainment over a unit
length of x,
P , defined as

P E = ρw gVa hG . (10)
Experimental data of void fraction distribution reported by Chanson [5]
for hydraulic jumps are analyzed in details. Figure 5a shows vertical distri-
bution of void fraction distribution at several sections of flow with different
x coordinate obtained by Chanson, where maximum air content decays in
the flow direction.
Using the air volume per unit area and depth of center of gravity of
air, we calculated the potential energy dissipation rate Ed per unit length
corresponding to each section in Figure 5a and plotted in Figure 5b. Note
that this is a conservative estimate, since the measure was performed for
air contents C
0.70. Finally, we integrated the curve in Figure 5b to esti-
mate the total energy dissipation rate, EdT , over the jump length in the
x-direction, which is compared with the rate of energy dissipation through
head loss, EH in Equation (8).
In the steady state, the ratio of energy dissipation rate due to air bub-
bles entrainment to the total energy dissipation rate, Da , is defined as
EdT
Da (%) = × 100. (11)
EH

Table I. Measurements of potential energy and energy dissipation rate for a hydraulic
jump.

Reference x − x1 (m) hG (m) Va (m) Ed (J/(m2 s)) EdT (J/(m s)) EH (J/(m s))

Ref. 5 0.00 0.006 0.008 19.62

0.10 0.015 0.020 49.05
0.20 0.032 0.019 46.60 20.64 80.5
0.30 0.034 0.018 44.12
0.45 0.046 0.0097 23.79
0.65 0.028 0.0017 4.17
334 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

All the calculated values are listed in Table I, which suggests that
around 25% of the total energy loss is dissipated through the potential
energy of air bubbles.

Figure 6. (a) Void fraction distribution (after Ref. 7); x1 = 0.0875 m, d1 = 0.010 m,
V1 = 2.39 m/s, (b) Energy dissipation rate per unit depth as a function of depth,
F r1 = 7.63.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 335

4.2. TWO DIMENSIONAL VERTICAL PLUNGING JET

When a water jet impinges a pool of water at rest, air bubbles may be
entrained and carried away below the pool free surface. This process is
called plunging jet entrainment sketched in Figure 4a (after Ref. 5). The
mechanism of air entrainment depends upon the impact velocity. In a ver-
tical plunging jet, air bubbles start to be entrained when the jet impact
velocity V1 exceeds a critical value.
The upstream energy transport rate for 2-D vertical plunging jet per unit
width is defined at the impact point as

1 1
Ej = ρw V12 q = ρw V12 (d1 V1 ). (12)
2 2

To estimate the potential dissipation rate, we considered the experimen-

tal data presented in Figure 6a. Using the same calculation technique as
the hydraulic jump, we calculated the potential energy dissipation rate per
unit length using Equation (4), knowing the air volume from Figure 6a and
plotted in Figure 6b.
The total potential energy dissipation rate was determined from Figure 6b
by integrating the curve along the depth. The results are listed in Table II.
In the steady state, the whole of the upstream energy is lost within the
water pool. It is denoted the ratio of EdT to Ej as Da and defined by the
following relation

EdT
Da (%) = × 100. (13)
Ej

From Table II, we have found the total energy dissipation rate is
0.92 J/(m s), that is only 1.4% of the upstream energy flux, although the
energy dissipation rate could not be calculated accurately because of the
insufficient data.

Table II. Measurements of potential energy and energy dissipation rate for a 2-D plunging
jet.

Reference x − x1 (m) hG (m) Va (m) Ed (J/(m2 s)) EdT (J/(m s)) EH (J/(m s))

Ref. 5 0.01 0.01 0.00218 5.35

0.05 0.05 0.0020 4.91 0.92 68.26
0.10 0.10 0.0022 5.40
0.20 0.20 0.0015 3.68
336 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

4.3. VERTICAL CIRCULAR PLUNGING JET

A definition sketch and photo of vertical circular plunging jet are given
in Figure 7. The upstream energy transport rate for a vertical circular
plunging jet is defined as
1 π
Ej = ρw V12 Qw = ρw V13 r12 . (14)
2 2
Void fraction distributions at different cross-sections below the impingement
point were measured by the authors in circular plunging jets. Figure 8a
exhibits void fraction profiles, plotted as functions of dimensionless radial
distance normal to the jet axis.
The volume of entrained air, Va , is computed for each section from the
experimental data by using the following definition:

2π 
rb 
Va = rC(r) dr dθ, (15)
0 ra

where ra and rb are the distance from the jet’s centerline to the inner and
outer edges of the void fraction distributions respectively. The measure-
ments were performed up to deeper position where the existence of air bub-
bles was found almost zero and this point was almost identical with the
maximum penetration depth.
From the experimental data in Figure 8a, we estimated the air volume and
potential energy dissipation rate per unit length corresponding to each sec-
tion using Equations (15), (10), and (4). The volume of air per unit depth, Va ,
increases in the deeper position rapidly and somewhat near the free surface,
which produces the similar type distribution of potential energy dissipation
rate (Figure 8b). Since the potential energy due to entrained air is proportional
to the air volume. Wood [15] and Chanson [5] suggested that more air bubbles
are redistributed due to vortex below the development flow region.
According to the continuity of air–water flow, the downward air dis-
charge must be equal to the upward air disappear at any depth, because
the system is steady. Practically, in the developing flow region it was mea-
sured only the down-going air bubbles. From Figure 7b it is seen that many
upward air bubbles are scattered near the free surface and it is very difficult
to measure those bubbles. Avoiding this complexity, it can be measured the
total amount of upward air may be deduced with the following approach:
V1
Vau = × Vad (Since, Qau = Qad ), (16)
wr
where Vau and Vad are the up-going and down-going air volume and Qau
and Qad is the up-going and down-going air discharge, respectively. Since
the system is steady phenomena, so if the water discharge Qw is continuous
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 337

Figure 7. Sketch and photo of vertical circular plunging jet.

then by continuity equation down-going air discharge Qad will be continu-

ous and at the same rate up-going air Qau will be released.
The total energy dissipation rate over the depth was estimated by
integration. The results are listed in Table III. Finally, we have determined
Da using Equation (13), which is about 2.15%.
338 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

Figure 8. (a) Local averaged void fraction distributions; x1 = 0.10 m, V1 = 2.51 m/s,
(b) Energy dissipation rate per unit length along x-direction; F r1 = 6.05.

Table III. Measurements of potential energy and energy dissipation rate for a vertical cir-
cular plunging jet.

Run Number x − x1 (m) hG (m) Va (m2 ) Ed (J/(m s)) EdT (J/s) Ej (J/s)

Circular jet 0.010 0.010 0.000038 0.093

(present study) 0.015 0.015 0.000025 0.061
0.025 0.025 0.000028 0.070
0.035 0.035 0.000027 0.066
0.075 0.075 0.000042 0.10 0.033 1.53
0.15 0.15 0.000084 0.21
0.20 0.20 0.000088 0.22
0.225 0.225 0.000051 0.12
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY DISSIPATION 339

5. Discussion
Air volume, potential energy, and energy dissipation rates due to entrained
air are estimated for three steady phenomena. The ratio of potential energy
transferred by the entrained air to the water to total energy dissipation
rate, Da , estimated from the data analysis were about 25% in the case of
hydraulic jump, 1.4% in the case of 2-D vertical plunging jet and 2.15%
in the case of vertical circular plunging jet. It is observed that the param-
eter Da is much larger for hydraulic jump than for 2-D vertical plunging
jet, although the impact velocity was almost identical. The probable rea-
son is the orientation of the roller. Figure 9a and b shows that in roller of
hydraulic jump, the momentum direction changes in 180◦ , where it is 90◦ in
the vertical plunging jet (Ref. 4). The change in momentum direction leads
to the higher energy dissipation rate.
On the other hand, a vertical circular plunging jet leads to an energy dis-
sipation rate almost two-times higher than for a 2-D vertical plunging jet.
The reason may be the difference in impingement perimeter. The ratio of
perimeter (P) to aerated area (A) is larger in the case of circular plunging
jet than 2-D vertical plunging jet (Figure 9c). Lamarre and Melville [12]
reported that up to 30–50% of total energy loss through wave breaking is
due to entraining the air bubble in the surf zone. The present study has
shown that the energy dissipation rate through hydraulic jump is almost
consistent with that of Lamarre and Melville [12], although there is an
inconsistency for plunging jet and plunging breaker, possibly because of
shallow water depth at breaking waves.

Figure 9. Transfer of momentum and air-water entrainment process at: (a) hydrau-
lic jump; (b) vertical plunging jet; (c) perimeter and aerated area of air entrainment
process in 2-D vertical plunging jet and vertical circular plunging jet.
340 ASHABUL HOQUE AND SHIN-ICHI AOKI

6. Conclusions
Our investigation allows a quantitative comparison of energy dissipation
among three typical air entrainment phenomena. A simple model is pro-
posed and the energy dissipation rate is calculated using the model. In the
model, the rise of velocity is used as a constant value. Ratios of energy dis-
sipation rate due to air bubbles to total energy dissipation rate Da were
about 25%, 1.4%, and 2.15% for hydraulic jump, 2-D vertical plunging jet
and vertical circular jet, respectively. Although the upstream velocities were
almost the same for all the cases, the ratios of energy dissipation rate show
significant difference among the three phenomena.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express special thanks to Dr. Hubert Chanson,
Reader, University of Queensland, Australia for his valuable suggestions
and providing experimental data.

References
1. Bin, A.K.: 1993, Gas entrainment by plunging liquid jets, Chem. Eng. Science 48,
3585–3630.
2. Bonetto, F. and Lahey, R.T.: 1993, An experimental study on air carry under due to
a plunging liquid jet, Int. J. Multiphase flow 19, 281–294.
3. Chanson, H. and Toombes, L.: 2002, Experimental study of gas–liquid interfacial
properties in a stepped cascade flow, Environ. Fluid Mech. 2, 241–263.
4. Chanson, H. and Brattberg, T.: 2000, Experimental study of the air–water shear flow
in a hydraulic jump, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 26, 583–607.
5. Chanson, H.: 1997, Air Bubble Entrainment in Free-surface Turbulent Shear Flow,
Academic press, London, U.K.
6. Chanson, H. and Lee, J.F.: 1997, Plunging jet characteristics of plunging breakers,
Coastal Eng. 31, 125–141.
7. Cummings, P.D. and Chanson, H.: 1997, Air entrainment in the developing flow
region of plunging jets-part 2: experimental, J. Fluids Eng. 119, 603–608.
8. Evans, G.M., Jameson, G.J. and Atkinson, B.W.: 1992, Prediction of the bubble size
generated by a plunging liquid jet bubble column, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47, 3265–3272.
9. Fredsoe, J. and Deigaard, R.: 1992, Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport, World
scientific publ., Singapore.
10. Führböter, A.: 1970, Air entrainment and energy dissipation in breakers, Proc. ICCE
391–398.
11. Koga, M.: 1982, Bubble entrainment in breaking wind waves, Tellus 34, 481–489.
12. Lamarre, E. and Melville, W.K.: 1991, Air entrainment and dissipation in breaking
waves, Nature 351, 469–472.
13. Mudde, R.F. and Saito, T.: 2001, Hydrodynamical similarities between bubble column
and bubbly pipe flow, J. Fluid Mech. 437, 203–228.
14. Peregrine, D.H. and Svendsen, I.A.: 1978, Spilling breakers, bores and hydraulic
jumps, In: Proceedings of 16th International Conferance Coastal Engineering ASCE, 1,
540–550.
15. Wood, I.R.: 1991, Air Entrainment in Free-surface Flows, Balkema publ., Netherlands.