SUMMARY In Part I a detailed derivation of a more general shallow water equation set was developed via a perturbation analysis. A finite element computational model of these more general equations is now constructed and the model behavior is compared with conventional shallow water formulations applied to an outletworks flume. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The momentum equations derived in Part I are in non-conservative form and are written for a specific distance above the bed to include effects due to curvature. The standard two-dimensional shallow water equation formulation assumes a mild bed slope and no curvature effect. These assumptions limit the applicability of these equations for some important classes of problems. In particular, flow over a spillway is indeed affected by the bed curvature via a decidedly non-hydrostatic pressure distribution. In Part II these equations are depth-integrated and incorporated in a computational model. This form of the equations may be useful in handling non-smooth conditions. The weak form solution for the no-curvature condition that would be encountered downstream of the spillway can be made to properly conserve momentum and mass through a hydraulic jump, whereas other forms of the equations may not. In the case in which there is bed curvature, these equations will contain additional terms due to the bed curvature which, while finite through the jump, will make an additional contribution that can cause an error in the jump location. Therefore, in the vicinity of the jump these equations, which properly conserve mass and momentum for the no-curvature case, will conserve mass precisely in the curved bed state only. Generally, in practical cases the strong jump is restricted to the region downstream of the spillway face where the bed contains no curvature. Several recent finite element schemes for the shallow water equations utilize the Petrov‐ Galerkin approach [1,2] and are considered in Reference [3]. Such a scheme is constructed here for the system developed in Part I to handle bed curvature effects. The treatment proceeds as follows: first the model equations are summarized and an appropriate test function is devised. Next, the finite element Petrov‐Galerkin system is presented and the treatment of boundary * Correspondence to: USAE Waterways Exp. Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Read full abstract