Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Accordingly, a drop manhole should provide a total energy loss equal to the drop
height.
The head loss is related to dissipative phenomena involving increase of flow
turbulence, jet spreading and jet impact onto the manhole bottom. As the height of
drop manholes is limited to typically 10 m, transformation into spray is small. The
energy dissipation is therefore essentially due to impact losses at the manhole walls
and bottom, associated with turbulence production. Moreover, if the incoming jet
impacts against the opposite manhole wall, the energy dissipation is also promoted
by jet spreading. Further dissipative effects are related to the outflow from manhole.
If the free falling nappe hits the downstream sewer invert, the most part of the
incoming discharge flows directly into the downstream pipe and the crossing flow is
affected by fewer dissipative effects. This cases can lead to unsatisfactory manhole
operation with consequent unexpected features of the downstream flow.
Energy dissipation across drop manholes was considered by few authors.
Christodoulou (1991) proposed an empirical equation for the head loss coefficient as
a function of a drop parameter, for circular drop manholes. Rajaratnam et al. (1997)
observed that flow processes in circular dropshafts could produce significant energy
loss, which should be considered in the design of sewer systems. Chanson (2004)
pointed out that energy dissipations of rectangular dropshafts depend on the basic
flow patterns (i.e. the flow regimes).
An experimental approach was conducted at the Laboratorio di Ingegneria
delle Acque, University of Cassino, Italy, to investigate the flow features in drop
manholes. A particular interest was to define the various flow regimes, and to
measure the gross energy loss across this hydraulic structure. The relative energy loss
was defined using the energy heads at the approach and the downstream pipes.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experimental facility consisted of a plexiglass circular manhole model
connected to a recirculation system (Fig. 1) (de Marinis et al. 2007). The tests were
performed on two different manhole models: (1) Model 1 has an internal manhole
(subscript M) diameter of DM = 1 m, and was tested with drop heights of s = 1.0, 1.5,
2.0 m. The water discharge Q varied from 3 l/s to 80 l/s; (2) Model 2 with DM = 0.48
m and s = 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 m, with 1.5 l/s Q 60 l/s, measured with an electromagnetic
discharge meter to 0.1 l/s. A jet-box controlled the approach flow Froude number
(Gargano and Hager 2002). Both the inlet (subscript in) and the outlet (subscript out)
plexiglass pipes had a diameter of Din = Dout = 200 mm, while the manhole bottom
shape was plane.
All manhole tests discussed below were conducted under atmospheric
pressure conditions, i.e. the manhole was not sealed. Flow depths were measured
with piezometers and point gauges with reading accuracies of 0.5 mm. The
approach (subscript o) flow depth ho was recorded downstream of the jet-box, where
the flow has a horizontal surface and the pressure distribution is hydrostatic. The
downstream (subscript d) flow depth hd was measured 3.40 m from the manhole
outlet, where the flow is gradually varied and the air entrained by the drop manhole
has almost detrained resulting essentially in clear water flow with a hydrostatic
2312
pressure distribution. The manhole therefore generates rapidly varied flow conditions
which are too complex to be addressed by an analytical approach.
a)
b)
ho
Din
Circular manhole
Upstream
pipe
Ho
s
Downstream pipe
Hd=Ed
Dout
hp
hd
2313
Regime R2a prevails if the jet impacts the zone between the manhole bottom
and the manhole outlet,
Regime R2b occurs if the jet impacts the downstream sewer invert
Regime R2c results from a jet partially impacting the manhole sidewall
immediately above the manhole outlet,
Regime R3a can be observed if the jet impacts above the outlet, and
Regime R3b establishes for higher Froude numbers, if the jet impacts against
the opposite manhole sidewall, breaks and spreads.
These flow regimes may be characterized with the impact number I
0.5
2s
Vo
I=
g DM
(1)
g
x2
2V cos 2
(2)
2
0
For yo = s and = 0, the impact parameter I results after division of eq. (2) by DM.
This parameter characterizes the regimes for supercritical approach flow, i.e. if the
Froude number is Fo >1.
Therefore, the Impact number represents the ratio between jet range and manhole
diameter. If is I < 1 the jet impacts on the bottom, whereas it impacts against the
opposite wall if is I > 1.
Tests indicate that transitions between the regimes depend essentially on the
impact number (Table 1). Obviously, a transition between two regimes is not a
sudden process, but a gradual one.
Table 1. Impact number values for regime transitions.
Regime Transition
Impact number I
R1-R2
0.6
R2-R3a
0.951
R3a-R3b
1.5
2314
ENERGY DISSIPATION
Figure 2 shows a definition sketch involving the energy heads H = s + h +
V2/2g and E = h + V2/2g relative to the tailwater and approach flow elevations,
respectively. Figure 3 (a) shows typical results for the relative energy loss
Ho Hd
Ho
= 1
that is
Ed
Eo + s
(3)
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Relative energy loss (I) for jet-box opening 50% and (a) DM = 1 m
and () s = 2.0 m, () s = 1.5 m, () s = 1.0 m (b) () DM = 1 m and () DM = 0.48
m, drop height s = 1.0 m.
2315
a)
b)
Figure 4. Relation between relative total downstream and upstream heads Ed/s
and Eo/s for s = 1.5 m, a) DM = 1 m ( ) and DM = 0.48 m (), b) DM = 480 mm, jet
box plate 40% () and jet-box plate 80% ()
2316
Figure 5 shows the maximum (subscript max) downstream energy head Ed/s
observed in the present tests. The upper limit is given by
Ed
E
= 0.05 + 1.5 o
s
s
(4)
= 1
0.05 + 1.5 Eo s
Ed s
= 1
1 + Eo s
Eo s + 1
(5)
Figure 5. Maximum observed downstream energy head Edmax/s versus Eo/s for
various drop heights and manhole diameters, (---) Eq. (4), () Edmax/s = Eo/s.
CONCLUSIONS
Drop manholes should operate such that the total upstream and downstream
energy heads are similar, i.e. the total energy loss is roughly equal to the drop height.
An experimental research was conducted involving two hydraulic models of different
2317
size to identify the effects of manhole geometry and approach flow hydraulics on the
energy loss.
It was found that the energy dissipation depends essentially on the manhole
operating conditions, i.e. the flow regime characterized by the impact number.
Further, the effects of drop height and of manhole diameter are also important,
indicating that the relative energy loss decreases with the drop height. In addition, the
relative energy dissipation generally tends to be larger as the manhole diameter
reduces. The maximum downstream energy head is specified with an empirical
equation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Eng. Tiziana Calcagni for her precious
collaboration in performing experimental tests. Moreover, they are grateful to Musilli
S.p.a. for supporting experimental activity.
REFERENCES
Chanson, H. (2004). Hydraulics of rectangular dropshafts. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering 130(6), 523-529.
Christodoulou, G.C. (1991), Drop manholes in supercritical pipelines. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 117(1), 37-47.
de Marinis, G., Gargano, R., Granata, F., Hager, W.H. (2007). Circular drop
manholes: Preliminary experimental results. 32nd Congress of IAHR, Venice [CDRom].
Gargano, R., Hager, W.H. (2002), Supercritical flow across sewer manholes. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 128 (11), 1014-1017.
Granata, F. (2007), Hydraulics of circular drop manholes. Ph.D. Thesis. Universit
degli Studi di Cassino, Cassino, Italy.
Del Giudice, G., Gisonni, C., Hager, W.H. (2000). Supercritical flow in bend
manhole. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 126(1), 48-56.
Rajaratnam, N., Mainali, A., Hsung, C.Y. (1997). Observations on flow in vertical
dropshafts in urban drainage systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering
123(5), 486-491.
Schwalt, M., Hager, W.H. (1995). Experiments to supercritical junction flow.
Experiments in Fluids 18, 429-437.
2318