ENERGY LOSSES AND PRESSURE HEAD CHANGES AT STORM DRAIN JUNCTIONS C. M. HARE Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Engineering Degree at The New South Wales Institute of Technology. November, 1980.Gi) STATEMENT I hereby declare that the content of this thesis does not comprise in the main any work or material which I have previously submitted for a degree or other similar award from any other Institute of Technology or University.(iii) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge, with gratitude, the following people and organizations, who gave me valuable assistance in the course of this project. In the first instance, I would like to express my appreci- ation to Dr. Allan Pattison, thesis supervisor and previously Dean of Engineering, The New South Wales Institute of Technology, for his guidance throughout the research programme and his assistance in the preparation of this thesis. I would also like to convey my special thanks to the staff of the School of Civil Engineering, The New South Wales Institute of Technology, especially Dr. Brian Cornish and Dr. Geoffrey O'Loughlin, for the interest and encouragement that they have given to this work In addition, I am grateful for the efforts of Mr. Ron Moore, Director of Industrial Liaison, Faculty of Engineering, The New South Wales Institute of Technology, who helped make this project possible. In this respect, I am also thankful to Mr. D. Bonouvrie of Vinidex Tube- makers Aust. Pty. Ltd., Mr. A. Ambler of Tubemakers Aust. Pty. Ltd., and Mr. H. Greenup of Cadillac Plastics Pty. Ltd., for their material contributions. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. B. Ireland, Mr. G. Cooper and other practitioners who have shown so much interest in this work. Finally, many thanks to Mrs. G. 0 ale, who was responsible for the excellent typing of the manuscript over which many hours were laboured, Thank you.Gv) CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE CHAPTER 1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 Pipe Junction Hydraulics 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Assumptions 2.3. Development of a General Theory 2.4 A Check of Theory Against Experimental Data 2.5 Hydraulic Performance of Commercially Available Pipe Junctions -6 Effect of the Reynold's Number -7 Summary : Pipe Junction Hydraulics CHAPTER Junction Pit Hydraulics Introduction Literature Review Flow Across Pit Junction Structures Effect of Pit Size and Shape Combining Flow at Three-Pipe Junctions aubRoNE Effect of Froude Number and Submergence on Pressure Head Change Coefficients 3.7 Summary : Pit Junction Hydraulics CHAPTER 4 Hydraulic Models of Junction Pits 4,1 Use of Hydraulic Models 4.2 Model Construction and Apparatus (iii) (av) (vi) (ix) (x) (xi) 7 v7 36 37 38 39 39 46 50 55 55 57 59 60 60CHAPTER 5 5. CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX 5 5 5. 5 5 auoroRL (w) Scope of the Investigation Water Supply System Model System and Pipelines Model Geometries Experimental Procedures RRePRE auRwRE Error Analysis Experimental Results Introduction Flow Straight-Through Junction Pits. 224° Bends at Pits 45° Bends at Pits 67%° Bends at Pits 90° Bends at Pits Conclusions Selected Bibliography Test Data 60 64 64 a1 88 94 98 99 102 104 106 109 110 147 154(wi) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 12 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.12 2.13 ew eww RbeRE u Effect of Selection of Water Surface Elevation Coefficient, k,, on Pipe Diameter. Theoretical Analysis for Pipe Junctions. Fluid Pressures Acting at a Sudden Expansion. Commercially Available Pipe Junctions. Comparison between Equation 2.25 and Experimental Evidence for Sudden Expansions. Energy Losses and Pressure Head Changes at Sudden Expansions. Energy Losses and Pressure Head Changes for Reducers (Sudden Contractions) Comparison between Equation 2.33 and Experimental Evidence for Mitre Bend Pipe Junctions Performance of Mitre Bends. Performance of Compound 90° Mitre Bends. Recommended Equation for Pressure Head Change Coefficients at Intake Junctions. Pressure Head Change Coefficients in Main Conduitat a 45° Slope Junction. Pressure Head Change Coefficients in Lateral Conduit at a 45° Slope Junction Recommended Equations for Pressure Head Change Coefficients at Slope Junctions. yaggion Configurations Tested by Sangster et at Junction Configurations Tested by Archer et al (1978) Positive and Negative Pressure Head Changes. Typical Junction Pit Operation Effect of Box $ize and Shape with all Flow Straight Through. co 16 19 20 22 24 26 28 32 33 34 41 44 46 48 514, 5. 5. SS SS SS SS 6 7 9 .10 cil 12 13 .19 20 221 22 1 2 (vii) Effect of Pit Size on Pressure Head Change Coefficients at 90° Junctions. Effect of Pit Size on Water Surface Elevation Coefficients at 90° Junctions, Pressure Line Elevations at 0° and 90° Bends. Schematic Layout for Junction Pit Experiments. Headtank. Manometers. Model Setup for Straight Through Flow. Flow Through a 45° Pit Junction. Flow Through a 45° Pit Junction Typical Inlet Pit. Tailwater Tank. 70 mm Diameter Model Pipeline. 94 mm Diameter Model Pipeline. 127 um Diameter Model Pipeline. Angle Adaptors - 4,18 Model Geometries Tested. Data and Calculation Sheet Typical Data Plot (Pressure Head Change Coefficient: Typical Data Plot (Water Surface Elevation Coeffic~ ents). Friction Slope vs Discharge for 70 mm Diameter Pipe. Comparison of Experimental Results with those of Investigators and with the Theoretical Analysis for Straight Through Flow Coefficients for Straight Through Flow (S/D, = 2.5). 53 54 56 63 65 66 66 67 67 69 71 74 75 76 78 82-87 89 s).92 93 96 we 113(viti) we .3 | Comparison of Theoretical Analysis with Experimental Results for @ = 2249, 5.4 - 5.8 Coefficients for 2249 Bends at Pit Junctions. 5.9 Comparison of Theoretical Analysis with Experimental Results for 6 = 45°. 5.10 - 5.19 Coefficients for 45° Bends at Pit Junctions. 5.20 Comparison of Theoretical Analysis with Experimental Results for 8 = 67%. 5.21 - 5.28 Coefficients for 67%° Bends at Pit Junctions. 5.29 Hydraulic Improvement of 90° Bends at Pit Junctions. 5.30 - 5.31 Comparison of Experimental Results with those of Other Investigators and with the Theoretical Analysis for 0 = 90°. 5.32 - 5.35 - Coefficients for 90° Bends at Junction. A.1 - A.60 Data Plot. 14 115-119 120 121-130 131 132-138 139 141-142 143-146 A3~A62(ix) LIST OF TABLES 2. S wus L Total Energy Loss Coefficients for Compound Mitre Bends Comparison of Energy Loss Equations for Sharp-Edged Slope Junctions Typical Values of k, for Pit Junctions Tested by Sangster et at (1958) Magnitude of k, (=C,) as Determined by Archer et al (1978) Percentage Conversion of Kinetic to Potential Head Derived from Archer's Experimental Data Constructed Inlet Pit Size Ratios Diameter and Area Ratios Used in Model Programme Pipe Lengths Used in Model Programme Angle Adaptors Quick Reference Guide to Geometries Tested Modification Table for Values of $/D, Other than 2.5 Typical Values of k, and k,, (branch point located on downstream face of pit) Typical Values of k, and k,, (branch point not located on downstream face of pit) 27 3 42 43 50 68 72 7 80 101 103 149 152(x) ABSTRACT An investigation has been made of the magnitude of hydraulic losses produced by storm drain junction structures which connect pipes operating under flow- full conditions. The study comprised three parts: (a) a literature review; (b) a study of losses associated with commercially available 'closed' pipe junctions; (c) an experimental study, using hydraulic models, to investigate the magnitude of losses at ‘open’ pit structures. A theoretical analysis was developed for closed pipe junctions. The theory was found to be adequate when checked against available experimental data. For pit junction structures, the experimental programme comprised thirty models covering an extensive range of geometric and hydraulic variables. The model studies indicated that maximum hydraulic efficiency is attained when the junction branch point is located on the downstream face of the pit. Data have been plotted for bend deflections angles of between 0° and 90°, and for upstream to downstream pipe diameter ratios within the range 0.55 to 1.00. Grate inlet flow and sub- mergence have been identified as parameters affecting losses. Semi-empirical equations have been developed to account for junction losses when the branch point is located on the downstream face of the pit.(xi) Nomenclature The symbols used in this thesis are listed hereunder. Alphabetical subscripts have been used which conform to a standard format. The subscript 'u' refers to the primary upstream pipe. If more than one upstream pipe converges at a junction, the second such pipe is characterized by the subscript 'b' (branch or lateral pipe). The outfall pipe is identified by the subscript 'o'. Notation spacer length for compound mitre bend junction. mean cross sectional area of the lateral pipe. mean cross section area of the model pipeline. mean cross sectional area of the outfall pipe. mean cross sectional area of the prototype pipeline. model-prototype area ratio. mean cross sectional area of the upstream pipe. pit dimension (square in plan). dimensionless total energy loss coefficient as defined by the difference between the lateral total energy line elevation and the downstream total energy line elevation when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the PPP PP OP Ee junction, divided by the average downstream velocity head. C,, dimensionless total energy loss coefficient as defined by the difference between the upstream total energy line elevation and the downstream total energy line elevation when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction, divided by the average downstream velocity head. mean diameter of the lateral pipe. mean diameter of the model pipeline. ao mean diameter of the outfall pipe- mean diameter of the prototype pipeline. eo) oO model-prototype diameter ratio. 4 Froude number in the outfall pipe oo ° acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s?) .HGL. Ph Po Pu a % So & 8% Q Qu nd TEL (xii) Hydraulic Grade Line (or pressure line or piezometric head line). dimensionless pressure head change coefficient as defined by the difference between the lateral and downstream pressure line elevations when extrapol- ated linearly to the branch point of the junction, divided by the average downstream velocity head. dimensionless pressure head change coefficient as defined by the difference between the upstream and downstream pressure line elevations when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction, divided by the average downstream velocity head. dimensionless pressure head change coefficient as defined by the difference between the water surface elevation in a pit junction and the elevation of the downstream pressure line when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction, divided by the average downstream velocity head. characteristic length in a model. characteristic length in a prototype. scalar ratio of the model equal to the characteristic length of the model divided by the characteristic length of the prototype. static pressure in the lateral conduit. static pressure in the main conduit. static pressure in the upstream conduit. mean discharge in the lateral pipe. mean grate flow discharge through the pit grate inlet mean discharge in the model pipeline. mean discharge in the outfall pipe. mean discharge in the prototype pipeline. model-prototype discharge ratio. mean discharge in the upstream pipe. resultant force component acting at the junction used in the impulse-momentum equation. depth of water in a pit junction measured from pit invert elevation to water surface elevation (submergence). Total Energy Line.<<< 4.4 4 Bs So oF a oF z 4H 4H, au, mean velocity in the lateral pipe. mean velocity in the model pipeline. mean velocity in the outfall pipe. mean velocity in the prototype pipeline. characteristic model-prototype velocity ratio. mean velocity in the upstream pipe. pressure head change defining the difference between the water surface elevation in a junction pit and the elevation of the downstream pressure line when extra- polated linearly to the branch point of the junction specific weight of a fluid. available head. total energy loss across a junction as defined by the difference between the lateral total energy line elevation and the downstream total energy line elevation when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction. total energy loss across a junction as defined by the difference between the upstream total energy line elevation and the downstream total energy line elevation when ‘extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction. incremental pressure head change coefficient due to presence of a pit structure, over and above a theoretical solution incremental pressure head change coefficient due to submergence effects, over and above a theoret- ical solution change in pressure head as defined by the difference between an upstream pressure line elevation and the downstream pressure line elevation when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction. density of water (+ 1000 kg/m). angle of lateral pipe deflection. angle of upstream pipe deflection.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION The hydraulic design of piped drainage systems involves an analysis of pipe friction losses and energy losses at junction structures. Methods for determining friction losses in individual pipe reaches are well documented and an accurate assessment of such losses can be made with a high degree of confidence if appropriate assumptions are made about condition of pipe wall surfaces and pipe joints. This is not so, however, for energy losses at junction structures. "This problem is so complicated that only a few simple and specific cases have been studied. The conclusions of such studies indicate that generalization of the problem is not possible or even desirable." (Chow, 1959) p. 512). Little information is available with regard to the magnitude of energy losses and pressure head changes occurring at pit junction structures. Jens and McPherson state: "There are virtually no data on which estimates of such losses can be based, other than those from the recent University of Missouri experiments." (Chow, 1954) p. 20-31). The use of closed pipe junctions, where expensive pit structures can be avoided, is likewise prohibited by the lack of design information that has had widespread publication. Conse- quently, methods used for the design of piped drainage systems may or may not lead to efficient designs. The ievel to which water will rise in a pit junction structure is equal to or slightly greater than the elevation of the upstream pipe pressure line. The water surface eleva- tion in the pit is, therefore, determined by the magnitude of the pressure head change (W.S.E.) attributable to the junction structure (see Figure 1.1). Without definitiv. data concerning the magnitude of such pressure head changes, it is not possible to accurately determine the minimum pipe sizes required to prevent flooding or to make an accurate assessment of the discharge capacity of the pipe system. There is, therefore, a need to develop a design method which simulates flow through surcharged pipes and which| “FBS Feud TWOYWWOD “wus ost oe LSPA Ai */') NOuwnoF OMS FRY? “une sg S7 “UAW cng TO jury ses S/~ (WH 90000=3) :09%ye@ canes | ay Bove Gruner iy Wh xO TIMI Y ANY Wy FO OWE FIEVIAY WY “WOS 4O MLONT? Bald © LAY FFI ‘Sp "FRB Said NO My” LNaDAIOD NOLWAITY FWAWMS YUM FO NOLDIFTIS AO LIFST ‘7 Ta Prasaccurately accounts for pit junction losses. Figure 1.1 illustrates a design method for piped drainage systems using hydraulic grade line computation. Although total energy line concepts are conventionally employed in hydraulic design, it is more convenient to use hydraulic grade line computations in storm drain design since such methods yield direct solutions to pit water surface elev- ations without the unnecessary inclusion of velocity heads. The design procedure is iterative: a pipe diameter is assumed, from which both friction loss and pressure head change are calculated. The pipe size is hydraulically adequate when the change in hydraulic grade line (aHGL) is sufficiently small to avoid surface flooding at the upstream structure, i.e., the required head is less than or equal to the available head. Utilizing the Darcy-Weisbach Equation: 2 ’H o> [se + ky] e ves Eq. 1.1 where 4H is the available head difference between pits (equal to the difference between the gutter invert elevation at the upstream pit and the pressure line elevation at the down- stream pit minus the required freeboard) (m), £ is the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, L is the length of pipe (m), D, is the pipe diameter (m), V, is the mean velocity of flow (m/s), g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s*), and k, is the water surface elevation coefficient for the upstream junction. The left and right hand sides of Equation 1.1 represent available head and required head respectively. The magnitude of k, was found by Sangster (1958) to vary within the range -4ck,<2.5 for most practical applications,a depending on the junction geometry. A similar range of values was found to occur for the range of junction pit geometries covered in the research reported on in this thesis. Such variations in k, create either large var- iations in head requirements for a pipe of given diameter or large variations in required pipe diameters when the available head is fixed. An example is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The selection of k, can be seen to be of critical importance in the selection of required pipe sizes and, therefore, on overall construction economics. An extensive literature search relating to losses at junction structures revealed few prior experimental investigations. These publications are reviewed in Chapter 3 and, in summary, provide data on a limited range of pit and pipe geometries. The work contained in subsequent chapters herein provides a state-of-the-art report on data for both closed pipe junct- ions and open pit structures, reports on original work which expands current knowledge, and presents design recommendations and constructional improvements which will produce more efficient and economic drainage systems. With such data, a surcharged pipe design method can be more successfully utilized - such designs yielding a more satisfactory correlation between the desirable frequency of surface flooding and the design storm recurrence interval.CHAPTER 2 PIPE JUNCTION HYDRAULICS 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Assumptions 2.3. Development of a General Theory 2.4 A Check of Theory Against Experimental Data. 2.5 Hydraulic Performance of Commercially Available Pipe Junctions RRNRRRBW GuUBuua 5. 1 Wauron Sudden Expansions Sudden Contractions Mitre Bends Compound Mitre Bends Intake Junctions Slope Junctions Vertical Entry Junctions 2.6 Effect of the Reynold's Number . 2.7 Summary : Pipe Junction Hydraulics7. PIPE JUNCTION HYDRAULICS 2.1 Introduction This chapter is concerned with the development of a theor- etical approach to the determination of energy losses and pressure head changes occurring at converging pipe junctions, to compare the derived equations with known experimental data, and to provide design data for the range of commercially available pipe junctions. When water flows in a number of conduits converging to a common junction point, the resultant energy losses and pressure head changes may be determined theoreticaliy using the principles of flow continuity, impulse-momentum and energy. A number of assumptions need to be made before such a theoretical analysis can be developed. 2.2 Assumptions The initial assumption adopted in this analysis is that all pipes entering the junction are flowing full, and are under pressure. Uniform velocity distributions are also assumed for all connecting conduits and the flow both upstream and downstream of the junction is assumed to be fully estab- lished and representative of steady flow conditions. Experimental evidence has shown that correction factors for non-uniform velocity distributions are not warranted on the grounds that the differences between the observed values and the corrected theoretical equations are several times greater than the correction obtained. (Blaisdell and Manson, 1963, p. 10). The hydraulic grade line and the total energy line for each of the conduits is assumed to extend linearly to the point of intersection, in plan, of the centrelines of the connecting pipes. This point is referred to as the branch point of the junction (see Figure 2.1). Where the centrelines of connecting pipes are not coincident, added complexities of multiple branch points affect the development of an adequate theory. The linear extension of the energy lines to the branch point of the junction means that the analysis ignores the accelerationELEVATION. FIGURE 2.1: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS _FOR_ PIPE _JSUNCTIONS.and deceleration of fluid particles in the region of the junction, particularly just downstream of the junction where a vena contracta is likely to occur. All junctions are assumed to be sharp-edged. The theoretical analysis does not take into account the effects of curvature at pipe entrances and exits. The energy losses and pressure head changes derived are those due to fluid impact eddying, turbulence and separat- ion (form losses). Losses due to frictional resistance across a junction are accounted for by the linear extension of the energy lines to the branch point of the junction. To simplify the theoretical analysis, certain assumptions have been made concerning the impulse-momentum equation. For a three-pipe junction (as shown in Figure 2.1), Equation 2.1 applies. The left-hand side represents the impulse per unit time due to all forces acting at the junction in the downstream flow direction (x), and the right-hand side is the rate of change of flow momentum, also in the downstream flow direction: oF, = 0 [Q¥5 ~ Q,Vcos8,, - O,V,,c08%, J +++ Eq.2.1 Thus, for two upstream conduits, Equation 2.2 holds: Pybycose, + PpA,cos®, - Poa, - Ry = eo [QV - Qv,cos8, - @Vpcosey] ee Eq. 2.2 The impulse-momentum relationship states that the pressure plus the momentum forces upstream of the junction must equal the pressure plus the momentum forces downstream of the junction (friction forces being neglected). This equality is maintained by a reaction force, R, exerted on the fluid by the junction structure. Evidence derived from experiments by various investigators indicates that this10. force can either assist or oppose the flow across a junction depending upon junction geometry and th: flow characteristics. In the case of more than one upstream pipe converging at a junction (such as in Figure 2.1), the elevation of the pressure lines for all upstream branches must be the same at the junction. ‘Thus for 'n' upstream pipes: Puy = = Py = = P ly by, bay ete , .. Eq. 2.3 Favre (1937) argues that, if this were not the case, "the gradient of the pressure will be enormous in that zone (where two flows combine, and) one would have there in any practical case a pressure discontinuity". Favre's theory is not, however, altogether supported by experimental evidence. Blaisdell and Manson (1963) and Gardel (1957) suggest that some variation exists between any two upstream hydraulic grade line elevations when these lines are extended linearly to the branch point of the junction. The difference becomes evident when the energy loss equations developed by each of these investi- gators are converted into pressure head change equations. (Compare, for example, Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12 which present pressure head change coefficients for main and lateral pipes respectively at a 45° slope junction.) For the theory being developed here, however, coincident pressure line elevations are assumed to occur as shown in Figure 2.1. Upstream total energy line elevations will be located one velocity head above the correspond- ing hydraulic grade line elevations. Therefore, unless the upstream velocity heads are equal in magnitude, the upstream total energy line elevations will not be coinci- dent at the junction branch point.i. On the left hand side of the impulse-momentum relationship (Equation 2.2), two further assumptions must be made. First, it must be assumed that the upstream pressures (Py) Py -+++) each act uniformly over the downstream area Aj: Taking the upstream lateral as an example, it is thus reasonable to assume that the pressure on the area (A, - Ay) is the same as that in the lateral pipe, namely P. The assumption can be illustrated using the simple case of a sudden expansion as shown in Figure 2.2. te 8 Po Po Ao-Ae) FIGURE 2.2 FLUID PRESSURES ACTING AT A SUDDEN EXPANSION. The pressure acting on the face of the downstream pipe at the section of enlargement is the same as the pressure in the approach flow (p,). For a three-pipe junction, this situation is assumed to exist for each upstream conduit. This line of argument is supported by Karaki (1971) p.142, Webber (1971) p. 106, Vennard (1961) p. 180, and has been used previously in the establishment of the Borda-Carnot formula for the energy loss attributable to a sudden en- largement. Favre (1937) justifies the use of such an assumption on the basis that, "it is known that the Borda- Carnot formula is remarkably well confirmed in practice and ic is at the Munich Laboratory that the best series12. of experiments for the verification of this formula have been performed". Favre is referring to the work of Vogel (1926, 1928), Kinne (1931) and Petermann (1929). Other experimental work such as that performed by Blaisdell and Manson (1963) and by Gardel (1957) add weight to Favre's justification. Second, it has been assumed that the flow across the junct~- ion operates under a pressure distribution such that the pressure on a horizontal plane is equal in magnitude in all directions. Such an assumption effectively eliminates the need to introduce 9, and 6, into the left-hand side of the impulse-momentum equation (Equation 2.2), and the pressure components of the approach flows (p,A,cos®,,, PpALCOS®,. -+++++) may be assumed simply as PAL, ppp ++ ete. Blaisdell and Manson (1963) have used such an assumpt- ion in the theoretical analysis they provide for total energy loss coefficients at sloped pipe junctions. Stevens (1926) used the same assumption stating that the change in momentum across the junction is simply equal -o the pressure at the junction minus the average pressure in the main below the junction, multiplied by the area of the downstream main. Use of Stevens' terminology leads to Equation 2.4. (I-P)A = OM se. Eq. 2.4 where J is the pressure at the junction, P is the maximum average pressure in the downstream main, A is the downstream pipe area, and aM is the change in momentum The impulse-momentum equation stated previously (Equation 2.2) may now be rewritten as Equation 2.5 (y+ Py ~ PQ) AQ Ry © [QV - QVjcose, uu QVpCosey, ] sos Eq. 2.5 This equation is the modified form of the impulse-momentum equation used in the development of a general theory for flow through a pipe junction system.13. 2.3 Development of a General Theory Consider the control volume for a pipe junction defined within Sections 1, 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 2.1. The sections are assumed to be located so that the fluid motion is not influenced by the convergence of the two branch flows. The distance (sP/,) represents the change in pressure head across the junction, whilst aH, and aH, represent the loss of total energy that occurs in the upstream main and lateral conduits respectively. The Bernoulli Equation may be written for each of the upstream conduits as Equations 2.6 and 2.7. P, vi? v2 v2 2+ 2 4+ ¢ 2 = + we. Eq. 2.6 2g 2g Y 2g v2 v2 v,2 +2 to 2 Be 2 vee BQ. 2.7 Y 28 2g y 2g Utilizing the continuity equation (V = Q/A) and rearranging the above expressions, the total energy loss coefficients, C, and G, may be stated as shown in Equations 2.8 and 2.9 respectively. = ve Eq. 2.8 G = Eq. 2.9 The modified impulse momentum equation (Equation 2.5) may be used to eliminate the absolute pressures p,, p,, and p, from the above equations. Restating Equation 2.5 for both the main and the lateral leads respectively to Equations 2.10 and 2.11. (gr PodAy ~ i =e LQV, - G,Vycose, - QV,cose,] - Pha, . +. Eq. 2.1014. =o [ QV, - QV cosa, - QV cose.) Eq. 2.11 Dividing Equations 2.10 and 2.11 by Aj, recognizing that y = eg, and substituting into Equations 2.8 and 2.9, Equations 2.12 and 2.13 may be derived: c,- 1- Ge cose) + (ég2 cos 0) Oo cose, 2R, os @) - FRY * Fay, . Eq. 2.12 and, for the lateral, -(- ae coso,,) + (2 cose,,) @ ) ee Ce 2 Bo FR 020% oO * 5M + Eq. 2.13 From Figure 2.1, Equations 2.14 and 2.15 may be derived. v2 vi? vi? ‘DL -2 +u2 = 0 wes Eq. 2.14 2g 28 2g v2 viz ove v2 and tug 8. 2 4K. 8 = 0 see Eq. 2.15 2g “2g Og 28 Simplifing these equations and solving for ky and ky leads to Equations 2.16, 2.17 a 2 8 ky = 1+, - @y Ge) vee Eq. 2.16G2) se Eq. 2.17 = cor 2 GE) : se. Eq. 2.18 Since p,/y has been assumed to equal p,/y, then k, must equal k,. It is necessary, therefore, to derive only one equation for the pressure head change coefficient. Substi- tuting Equation 2.13 into Equation 2.16, the final expression for the pressure head change coefficient may be stated as: kok 2-2 G2) con, HOG C2) 9% cost, 059, 2Pydy aR, = CRE SE) RE * ey . Eq. 2.19 The pressure head change may now be determined = “b° Yo ++ Eq. 2.20 Similarly, total energy losses may be calculated using Equations 2.21 and 2.22 which have been derived using Equations 2.12 and 2.13 and substituting oH, = ¢ v2 ‘us “oO wee Eq. 2.21 g aH, = C,. Vo? ses Eq. 2.22 re Commercially available pipe junctions are shown in Figure 2.3. With the exception of compound mitre bends (which have no theoretical base and depend on experimentally derived date for the evaluation of losses) Equations 2.12, 2.13 and 2.19 may be simplified to provide theoretical solutions for each of the junction geometries shown.16, FIGURE 2.3: COMMERCIALLY AVAMABLE PIPE PINCTIONS, C MITRE BENDS.1. 2.4 A Check of Theory Against Experimental Data It has been shown that equations for total energy loss and pressure head change coefficients can be derived provided that terms are included "for the corresponding unbalanced force component acting on the wall of the lateral" (McNown (1954) p. 1105), and for the absolute upstream pressure acting at the branch point of the junction. Both terms are introduced in the impulse-momentum equation (Equation 2.5) and are carried through, as unknowns, to Equation 2.19, which is the equation for the pressure head change coefficients k, and k,. The theoretical equations obtained contain three -nknows. The application of Equations 2.12, 2.13 and 2.19 is not possible without first assuming the magnitudes of the reaction force and the upstream pressure. In previous theoretical analyses (Favre 1937) and Stevens (1928) ), the reaction force component, R,, and the upstream pressure component were assumed equal to zero. With these assumptions, a comparison can be made between simplified theoretical and experimentally derived energy loss and pressure head change coefficients. Differences between the theoretical and experimental coefficients may be attributed to the resultant force and pressure having non-zero magni- tudes, errors introduced by the assumptions made in the development of the theory and from experimental error. In the following section, the hydraulic performance of various pipe junctions is evaluated and a comparison is made wherever possible between the experimental evidence and the simplified theoretical equations. 2.5 Hydraulic Performance of Commercially Available Pipe Junctions. 2.5.1 Sudden Expansions For a sudden expansion of a pipeline (Figure 2.3(A) ), the theoretical equation for the pressure head change coefficient (Equation 2.19) reduces to Equation 2.23.aR, ko + raw, Eq. 2.23 Setting R, and p, equal to zero: A ko = 2 @- x) cee Eq. 2.24 Similarly, from Equation 2,12: Gos a) ° ve. Eq. 2.25 Using continuity and the Bernoulli Equation, it can be shown that: a2 0) + Yo any = a - x) ~ ve. EQ. 2.26 . Eq. 2.27 Equation 2.27 is known as the Borda-Carnot Formula and is plotted in Figure 2.4. Experimental work on the perform- ance of sudden enlargements has been investigated by Archer (1913), who developed Equations 2.28 and 2.29: 1,919 an, = 1:098 (Wy = Vo) ve. Bq. 2.28 2g = 0.01705 (Y= Vy)39 4s. Eq. 2.29 where g is measured in imperial units (32.17 ft/s ). In metric units (g = 9.81 m/s), Archer's Equation becomes: - 1319 4H, = 0.05081 (V, - Vv.) +++ Eq. 2.30 For the limiting case where V, equals zero, experiments at the University of Michigan indicate that Archer's Formula19. ELCURE 2.4. COMPARISON BETWEEN EQUATION 2.25 AND EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR SUDDEN EXPANSIONS. wo 8 5 8 ° a TOTAL ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT 'Cy’ 9 & ARCHER (193) o> 5S Q230)) 0s Damerer RATIO PY,ToraL enercy Loss cosrrrcier ‘Cy’ 10.0 2.00 0.8 0.05 & Be, \ FeEsione HEAD OUNCE Es SS } \ C=, —— : ee ce a 5 \ bl ®& ‘ —_f- \ 1 I Os OE 07 0.8 0d é 20. FIGURE 2.5 :ENERCY LOSSES AND PRESSURE HEAD CHANCES AT SUDDEN EXPANSIONS. DIAMETER RATIO "H/o. “10.0 a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COEFFICUNT ‘ky’.2. is quite satisfactory. Equation 2.30 has been plotted on Figure 2.4 for V, = 0.5 m/s and V, = 5 m/s. From the figure, Equation 2.25 may be considered to give a good approximation of energy losses when the diame-er ratio D,,/D, approaches 1.00, and may be considered conservative for lower values of D,/D,- Figure 2.5 presents total energy loss and pressure head change coefficients based on Equations 2.25 and 2.24 respectively. 2.5.2 Sudden Contractions For sudden contractions, a reduction of Equation 2,19 setting R, and p, equal to zero, will yield Equat- ion 2.24, However, "Expansions and contractions ..... cannot be treated in the same fashion due to the unknown distribution of piezometric head over the contraction face in the latter case" (Sangster, 1958, p. 22). Various authors present design data relating to the losses across reducers. Few, however, cite the source of experimental evidence. Energy loss and pressure head change coeffici- ents fromvarious source are presented in Figure 2.6. King (1963) accredits Merriman (1916) with the universally recognized formula of Equation 2.31. 1 2 ve an (&- 1) 2 ss Eq. 2.31 where C, is the contraction co-efficient defined by Equation 2.32. - 0.0418 c, 0.582 ~ ete) vee Eq. 2.32 : 0! Pu The formula has been found to be accurate when the head loss exceeds 0.3m but is somewhat conservative for smaller head losses. Data by Karaki (1971) and data from Austral- ian Standard A.$.2200 have been included in Figure 2.6 for comparative purposes22. FIGURE 26: ENERGY LOSSES AND PRESSURE HEAD CHANCES FOR REDUCERS (Sudbe) CONTRACTIONS). tw: 4Q2.25 ANG Ce gu oF T L AUST. STANDARD | AS, 2200, » 03 — a [eaean rion)| 7 Nt 3 S i Zz i i 3 ar ° 10 12 Ma 16 18 20 22 bramerer RATIO 7a, A 4 3 : | Jawe/io6s) t = zQ2m § (2 AUST. |ewoveo g AS. 2200 . a” Oo T 10 j Y x sana 3 ne LEON i or oe —- _ z os to ta Mt 18 18 Zo zz draweree rario P/b,,23. 2.5.3 Mitre Bends Simplifying Equation 2.19 for the geometry of a mitre bend and seting R, and p, equal to zero, Equation 2.33 may be developed. k, = 2 (1 - cose,) see Eq. 2.33 The distribution of piezometric head at the vena contracta in the downstream pipe is unknown. A logarathmic plot of total energy loss and pressure head change coefficients against angle of deflection (6) for Equation 2.33 is stown in Figure 2.7. Ambrose (1953) has presented an alternative theoretical analysis using a "free streamline" approach, by consideration of separation at the vena contracta immediate- ly downstream of the bend, Where the theoretical analysis set out in Section 2.3 overestimates the magnitude of losses when R, and p, are set equal to zero, the free streamline theory underestimates these losses. This comes about because the theory does not take into account secondary flow patterns and the resulting secondary flow losses. Experimental work by Kirchbach (1929) and Schubart (1929) are shown to plot between the two theoretical approaches Equation 2.33 is shown to be conservative for large deflect- ion angles; the reaction force in these cases being more significant. Figure 2.8 shows curves fitted visually to Kirchbach and Schubart's experimental data. 2.5.4 Compound Mitre Bends Miller (1971) has presented performance curves for compound 90° mitre bends (Figure 2.9). With such bends, an adequate length must be provided between adjacent bends in order to minimize the overall bend loss. This length should be app- roximately 1.5 pipe diameters for optimal design. Data is not presented by Miller for bends having a total deflection angle less than 90° (for example, 2 x 30° mitre bends making a 60° compound junction) and such junctions do not lend themselves to theoretical solutions.24. FIGURE 2.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN = EQL’ATION! 2.33 AUD EXPERIMENTAL EVIORACE FOR SINGLE MITRE BEND PIP JUNCTIONS . LEGEND * 2 KIRCHBACH (1929) SMOOTH PIES © SCHUBERT (1922) SHOOTN PrES ¥ SCHUBART (1929) ROUGH Pires. — EQUATION 2.33 ~~ FREE STREAMUNE THEORY (AMBROSE, 1253). hel a 8 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 8 © R Pressure Heacl Chonge Coefficrent 9 g Total Energy Loss Coefioent 'G," = 0.02 © © 2 30 2 $0 60 jo & 80 HO 10/20 Aagle of DeRection ©-°TOTAL ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT 'C./ k PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COEFFICIENT FIGURE 2.8; PERFORMANCE OF MITRE BENDS. 1.50 1.00 0.60 0.06 0.08 0.02 (HOZE + CURVES WAVE BEEN FITTED Lisusity 7D EXPERMENTAL DATA AS PER FOURE 2.7) ROUGH PIPES —sMoorw PIPES LL ° 0 2 3% 4 $0 60 70 & G0 10 WW ° ANGLE OF DEFLECTION @y. 120hero ¢ TOTAL ENERGY LOSS COEFERIENT 'G,/= PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COEFFICIENTS °7 06 o2 26. FIGURE 22 PERFORMANCE OF COMROUND S0° MITRE BENDS. (source :_muter (197) )- c | woe CoMmpouNa BENDS OF LESS TWAN 90° DEFLECTION , % : [Use mare 21 Zag?27. Based on the hydraulic performance of single mitre bends (Figure 2.7), and compound 90° junctions (Figure 2.8), the values of loss coefficients as set out in Table 2.1 have been obtained by interpolation for a spacer length (a/D in Figure 2.9) of 1.5 pipe diameters. The values thus represent minimum design values. TABLE TOTAL ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOUND MITRE BENDS Geometric Configuration —Ztal Energy Loss Coefficient _ Smooth Pipes Rough Pipes 2 x 224° o.1¢ 0.14 3 x 224° 0.14 0.17 2x 30° 0.16 0.20 2 x 378° 0.24 0.27 (ote: Total Energy Loss and Pressure Head Change Coefficients are equal) For other spacer length dimensions, larger coefficient values should be expected. While no experimental evidence is known to be available to support Table 2.1, interpolation between Figures 2.8 and 2.9 yields values accurate to approximately 0.03. Little advantage appears to be gained from use of “lobster- back" bends when more than three individual mitre bends are used compositely. By comparison with available data, the curve representing 4 x 224° bends in Figure 2.9 approxi- mates the curve attributable to a circular are for values of a/D greater than 1.5 (Miller (1971) pp. 194-195).28. *SNOMLNII FAVLNI tw SINDUAFAD FONVHD WH BWNASSHAd WA/ NOLLWNOF GIONTWWOITY OFZ FUATF 2Ez Nolieroe ——— Goi 10 FF + Be - (yg + -e2 = 9 = SLPONID WHUYT GY KIVA HLS 30729. 2.5.5 Intake Junctions The provision of a simple upstream inlet pipe attached to a mitre bend junction (as shown in Figure 2.3(E) ) is easily achieved in pipe junction manufacture. Unfortunately, experi- mental evidence regarding the hydraulic efficiency of such junctions does not appear to be available and a theoretical solution is necessary. Such solutions should yield conservative values of loss coefficients for most geometric configurations. Equation 2.34 is presented as a theoretical solution for intake junctions. mo 20 Re 4B) RD -2GE + Reco) (P)” Bq. 2.34 Equation 2.34 is a simplication of Equation 2.19 with R, and p, set equal to zero. 2.5.6 Slope Junctions For slope junctions (Figure 2.3(F) ), Equation 2.19 may be reduced to Equation 2.35. Q A a? kot ke 4(Q) 2 G+ g2 cose) (@) us ves Bo. 2. Total Energy Loss Equations 2.12 and 2,13 similarly reduce to Equations 2.36 and 2.37 respectively. at 7 2) - G2 Be) @) . Eq. 2.36 Q A, AG?) /% bot - 1+ 6(R)- [2 298 cose, 2) |@ Eq. 2.37 Equations 2.36 and 2.37 were derived by Favre (1937). Blaisdell and Manson (1963) performed a comprehensive series of experiments to check derived theory for total energy loss coefficients at slope junctions. They reported that:30. "In general, the theoretical junction loss coefficients are greater than the observed loss coefficients. Use of the theoretical coefficients in place of the observed co- efficients would thus err on the side of conservatism." (ibid p. 46) "Graphical analysis of the general equations for determining the junction energy loss co- efficients in the main (pipe) shows that the theoretical equations generally give predictions as good as or better than the least squares developed equations. For the lateral the situation is reversed with the least squares equations giving predictions of the junction energy loss coefficients that are in better agreement with the observed values than are the theoretical coefficients. Statistical tests show that the theoretical equations well represent the observed data even though the least squares equations are more representative". (ibid p.58) Gardel (1957) makes no comparative analysis between the theoretical equations and his experimental results; he does briefly state, however, that: "One finds several differences, especially when the loss cf head is small... ... " (p. 6). Theoretical and experimentally derived equations for total energy loss coefficients, C, and C,, are compared in Table 2.2, and need to be modified using Equations 2.16 and 2.18 to determine the pressure head change coefficients, k, and k,. Figures 2.11 and 2.12 illus~ trate for a 45° slope junction the equations set out in Table 2.2, after modification to pressure head change coefficients. Figure 2.11 represents the pressure head change coeffic- ients kD for the main conduit whilst those for the lateral (k,) are represented in Figure 2.12. Comparison of the two figures reveals some variation between kK, and ky for experimentally derived curves. The variation becomes more pronounced as ©, approaches 90°. Also of31. * BZ OMY ST SNOLWROT BS SINTDIBOD POWHD OVI FeNSSTd QL AYPANOD AL “9 eee! GL Lx) - mee a] (ge + 1B roumome we vel (PI (i) w0- om esor 191] -(R)orz + x0- =p mmeiar cx) econ| (PIL JOD ie 021 ]-(Qioce + sco~ = jqeutee (od we o2| Sel 99500 +, ()90- # > BswMYoco+ 091] GR ge e+ (Pedes-—b (tse1) Tcavo Terr sezoa| PL pm ee 1 ]- Ge + 0 =% mouse opz 3] RL 9509 Mar + sz]-(@iaz + 0 wy SRE AS (El) azul (BL Sys obi 5:0] - (Bas: + 0 = pearnaitee ume sea! PL 299 ~ Tosfea1+ 001 (PK gE-2) + v= — (0501) nemo paw (C961) nose 8 TrHISIVTE : FAS) “SNOMINAL BAOTS TIDGF-AAWHS AOS SNOMLVNOF $507 ADYINT 10 NOSTYvaWoD erred32. EIGURE 2.1) 482 Scope JUNCTION. PRESSURE HEAS CHANCE COEFFICIENT IN MAD CONDUIT US. DISCHARGE RATIO. PRESSURE HEAL CHAAICE COEFFICIENT IN MAIN CONDUIT vw “2 key: EQUATION 2.85 GAgoe. BLAISDELL & MANSON (LEAST SquUARES). PETERMAN Ao Ag 21.00 Ao/Ag = 200 Ao/As = 3.0033. FIGURE 212 45° StoPE JUNCTION. PRESSURE HEAR CWANOE COBFFICIENT 1A) LATERAL CONDUIT US. PRESSURE HEAL CHANGE COEFFICIENT IN Larceae conpurr ‘kes -t 2 DOISCHARCE RATIO. Ad/Ag = 1.00 Aes = 2.00 Ao/Ag= 3.00“SNOMLOND[” RIOTS Le SUVPIDUAFIOD FONVHD CVIH FWNSSFA AA WOLWNOF TFNTWHOITY &FZ FUN9/F we Nowenboe — GP ee! ~ %0 909 F350 + 19] - (Qo ero = Dy FLIROROD WALT FE S82 Noumoy — 2H s00- E+ Jz - (gee = ?7 KEIDINOD Wav LO35. interest in these figures is the ability to obtain negative values for the pressure head change coefficients given suitable geometric and flow configurations. Such values occur as a result of flow deceleration across the junction. A comparison of total energy loss coefficients determined by various investigators was developed by Blaisdell and Manson (1963). Equations 2.36 and 2.37 have been shown to produce conservative results for most junction geometries and flow divisions. Use of the theoretical equations generally yields higher coefficient values than experi- mental data support. In conclusion, Figure 2.13 presents the Equations recommended by Blaisdell and Manson (1963) for both main and lateral conduit pressure head change coefficients for slopejunctions. (Equation 2.44 is the pressure head change equation corresponding to the least squares total energy loss equation developed by Blaisdell and Manson for the lateral conduit (shown as Equation 2.43 in Table 2.2). 2.5.7 Vertical Entry Junctions For vertical entry junctions (Figure 2.3(G) ), Equation 2.19 reduces to Equation 2.45. 2 = 4 (@) -2 a) wee Eq. 2.45 where Q, is the discharge through the vertical entry. Using the relationship Q, = Q, + Q,, Equation 2.45 may be rewritten as Equation 2.46. oot 20-8) ee Eq. 2.46 lo This equation has been checked against data for pit junct- ions where additional flow enters through a grate-inlet (the pit being larger than the connecting pipes). The36, reader is referred to Chapter 5 for details. It should be noted, however, that when Q,/Q, is equal to 0.50, the pressure head change coefficient has been found experiment- ally to equal 1.5 for pit junctions when D,/D, is equal to 1.00. Similar values for pipe junctions will result using Equation 2.46. The corresponding total energy loss equat- ion for vertical entry junctions may be determined from Equation 2.47. Gs 1 @) wes Eq. 2.47 2.6 Effect of the Reynold's Number Blaisdell and Manson (1963) state that viscosity effects, as measured by the Reynold's Number, are known to affect the mag- nitudes of the various resistance coefficients. This relat- ionship is reflected in the derived theoretical equations (Equations 2,12, 2.13 and 2.19) by the inclusion of the pressure component (-2p,A,/oQ,V,). For a fixed geometry, the static upstream pressure can only rise with an increase in discharge (i.e., Reynold's Number). Anderson and Straub (1948) point out that, "in the turbulent range, the bend coefficent decreases with increasing Reynold's Number until . endent of the Reynold's Number, and remains constant”. . a point is reached where it becomes indep- Miller (1971) suggests that the Reynold's Number correction factor remains constant (equal to 1.00) for Reynold's Numbers greater than 200,000. Similarly, Blaisdell and Manson (1967) conclude that, "the energy loss coefficient will decrease slightly as the Reynold's Number increases for Reynold's Numbers somewhat below about 150,000". In urban drainage design, Reynold's Numbers below 200,000 are rarely present due to minimum pipe diameter and minimum flow velocity specifications. It may therefore be concluded that viscosity effects are not significant in such applications.37. 2.7 Summary ; Pit Junction Hydraulics A theoretical solution has been developed to evaluate the hydraulic performance of flow through pipe junctions for the general case of three converging pipes. Certain assumptions have been applied to the theory to provide a simplified approach which can be checked against experi- mental data. Where such data is not available, the simplified theoretical solution will yield conservative but adequate values. For commercially available junctions which do not lend themselves to theoretical analysis (such as compound bends), experimental data have been reviewed to allow the determination of loss coefficients tor such geometries. Estimates of hydraulic performance have thus been provided for most commercially available pipe junctions.be ewe w iS au br & 38. CHAPTER 3 JUNCTION PIT HYDRAULICS Introduction Literature Review Flow Across Pit Junction Structures Effect of Pit Size and Shape Combining Flow at Three Pipe Junction Effect of Froude Number and Submergence on Pressure Head Change Coefficients Summary : Pit Junction Hydraulics39. JUNCTION PIT HYDRAULICS 3.1 Introduction When water flows through a piped drainage system, energy is lost due to frictional resistance along each pipe length. In addition, other energy losses occur wherever the flow undergoes a change in momentum, such as at a change in flow direction or with the introduction of additional flow at a junction strucutre. In some circumstances, particularly where pipe lengths are short or where pipes are laid on hydraulically steep grades, losses attributable to such structures may be relatively large. For a design example given by Sangster et al (1958), Jens and McPherson calculated losses at inlets and manholes to comprise 37% of the overall pipe friction loss and conclude that such losses are much greater than estimates made by ordinary design criteria. (Chow (1964) p. 20-31). 3.2 erature Review A comprehensive literature search, using both manual techniques and a computerized reference system, revealed relatively little past research into storm drain junction hydraulics. Two of the three research programmes that were uncovered were concerned with the nature of flow across pit junctions for which all connecting pipes were flowing full and under pressure (Sangster et al (1958) and Archer et al (1978) ). A third study, Prins (1976) dealt with energy losses under part-full flow conditions and was aimed at establishing the optimum channel invert shape across the junction. These investi- gations, however, are limited in their application to design since only specific geometric configurations have been tested to satisfy localized design problems. Other references were found to present fragmented material or, in some cases, to simply present a rep2at of Sangster's work, Only the three references above gave an adequate appreciation of junction hydraulics. These references are reviewed below.40. 3.2.1 Sangster, Wood, Smerdon, and Bossy (1958) In 1953, a research programme to establish the effects of open pit junctions on the magnitude of pressure head changes in storm drain systems flowing full was init- iated by Sangster, Wood, Smerdon and Bossy at the Civil Engineering Department of the University of Miss- ouri. The project took five years to complete. The majority of tests performed by these investigators involved grate drop inlet junctions of rectangular shape. The junctions investigated were in common use by the Missouri State Highway Department, The extent of the work may be summarized as follows: "Rectangular boxes serving as inlets for surface flow alone, and as combination inlets and pipe junctions, were studied. Square and round manholes were also investigated. Several measures were evolved to reduce pressure losses for junction types otherwise characterized by especially large losses. The report covers the laboratory investigation and presents an analysis of the hydraulic characteristics of most of the structures investigated. Methods for converting the test results into design methods are discussed. A concluding section includes methods for the design of inlets and junctions in storm drain systems flowing full, together with illustrative examples. " (ibid, p.iii) The geometries tested by Sangster et a are shown in Figure 3.1. Each geometry tested comprised either a 0° or 90° bend structure. The study of junctions with angles other than those tested was recommended by the authors as a topic worthy of further investigation (ibid, p. 81). The work of Sangster et al at the University of Missouri provided data and methods which may be used in the hydraul- ic design of stormwater drainage structures. "Designs based on the data can be made with assurance so long as the basic limitations of the data are not exceeded" (ibid p. 81). The main difficulty in the use of their data is the limited range of manhole geometries considered. The hydraulic£7 FICURE 3. Ze: Csource + Queensland Dept of Mon Reacts Rood Menuo!). Coney42. performance of geometries of angles other an 0° and 90° cannot be determined using interpolation ox modification procedures, since junctions invariably produce significant discontinu- ities in flow patterns with changing angles of deflection Typical results obtained by Sangster et at are simmarized in Table 3.1: TABLE 3.1 TYPICAL VALUES OF k FOR PIT JUNCTIONS TESTED BY SANGSTER et al, (1958) Junction Geonetey Trica 1, straight ehzcugh manhole without lateral or change in pipe size. oun = 0.2 2. Straight through manhole with change in pipe size. ~ 0s 3. Upstream pipe in line with outlet with 20% grate flow. 0.6 4. Upstream pipe in line with outlet pipe and 90° lateral. Flow fom lateral 203 Of total flow. os 5. two opposed Laterals, one-third the flow fron the lateral with the higher velocity. 0.7 6. to offset opposed laterals, two-third of the flow fron the lateral nearest the outlet pipe. Ls 1s 7. 90° angle, without change in size. No lateral. 1.6 8. Upstream pipe in line with outlet, plus 90° lateral. Flow equally divided between the upstream pipes La 3.2.2 Archer, Bettess and Colyer (1978) Work on junction pit losses has also been performed at the Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, England, by Archer et al. The test programme involved the use of43. rectangular and circular structures, to determine the magnitude of energy losses occurring at surcharged sewer manholes: “The manholes were designed to represent typical configurations used in current sewerage practice”. (ibid, p.3) The tests were limited to deflection angles of 0°, 30° and 60°, with no secondary inflow through a top grate ané with a constant diameter ratio, D,/D,, of unity. The configurations used are shown in Figure 3.2. The authors concluded that the magnitude of the loss coefficient was independent of the discharge, the degree of submergence (i.e, pressure) and the extent of the air entrainment. The change in alignment and the manhole shape were the main factors influencing the loss of head.’ Results applicable to the cases tested are given in Table 3.2, The benching shown in Figure 3.2 has, in each case, a slope of 1 : 12 towards the channel. TABLE 3.2 MAGNITUDE OF k, (= C,) AS DETERMINED BY ARCHER et al ‘rype of Manhole | 0° deflection |30° deflection | 60° deflection Rectangular 0.1 0.4 0.85 Circular 0.15 0.5 0.95a4. FIGURE 3.2 YOUNCTION CONFIGURATIONS TESTED BY AGOUR ET AL (1978). (ARROWS I PITS: /WOICATE BENCHING HAS A 1:12 SLOPE TOWARDS CHANAEL ) | fanor| O° DEFLECTION.45. 3.2.3 Prins (1976) A research programme undertaken by Prins (1976) at the University of Ottawa was concerned primarily with vari- ations in pit invert geometry and the magnitude of related energy losses. Prins studies the effects of such variations for pipes flowing under part-full condit- ions. For junctions having a 152 mm in-line main and a 102 mm lateral connecting to a junction box at either a 45° or 90° angle, Prins arrived at the following conclusions: 1. A U-shaped cross-section resulted in minimum energy loss. ; An open junction box (with no furnishings) resulted in the highest energy loss. 3. An abrupt or smooth drop provided across a junction between pipe inverts was effect- ive in reducing the energy loss. 4. Pit dimensions should be kept as small as possible. Deflectors tested were not helpful for the 45° junction but were of benefit for 90° lateral configurations. Prins' experimental results apply exclusively to junctions for which all connecting pipes are operating under part- full flow conditions. The conclusions drawn, however, serve an indicators for possible field improvements in existing storm drain systems which fail to perform satisfactorily.46. 3.3 Flow Across Pit Junction Structures As water flows through a junction pit, a loss of total energy occurs due to turbulence, eddying, impact and structural vibration. This loss of total energy (AH) is converted to heat and sound energy and represents an addi- tional energy that is required to the drain system due to the presence of the junction structure, The total energy loss is usually defined as a function of the downstream velocity head (Equations 2.21 and 2.22), where the coeffi- cients C, and C, are always positive (i.e. a loss of energy occurs). A redistribution of total energy compon- ents (pressure head and velocity head) also occurs as the flow proceeds across the junction. The change in pressure head across the junction may be expressed as a function of the downstream velocity head (Equation 2.20). In this equation, k, and k,, the pressure head change co- efficients for each upstream conduit may be either positive or negative depending upon the specific geometric and flow characteristics of the junction (i.e. either a drop or a rise in the hydraulic grade line occurs across the structure). i me ae me ‘4P Hox - r 5% POSITIVE, NEGATIVE . FIGURE 3.3 : POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE PRESSURE HEAD CHANGES.47. Negative pressure head changes are confined to junction structures where the downstream pipe diameter is larger than the upstream pipe diameter and, based on experiment observ- ations, where the angle of deflection across the junction is generally less than 45°, If the upstream and downstream velocity heads are equal in magnitude (i.e. Q, equals Q, and D, equals D,), the change in the pressure head across the junction will be equal to the loss in total energy. If, however, the flow configuration at the junction is complicated by either the provision of a secondary inflow (such as inlet grate flow), or by a change in pipe diameters across the junction, the upstream and downstream velocity heads cannot be equal. In these circumstances, the magnitude of the pressure head change will not correspond to the magnitude of the total energy loss across the junction. It has been shown in Chapter 2 that a relationship exists between the total energy loss and the pressure head change. Equations 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18, which were developed for pipe junctions, also apply to pit junction structures. The energy lines shown in Figure 3.4 represent the magni- tude of the total energy components (pressure head, veloc- ity head and potential head) at the pipe centreline elevations. For example, the point 'e' represents the point of intersection of the total energy line for the upstream pipe with the centre of the junction pit. The water surface elevation in the pit will rise (or fall) to a level at least equal to the elevation of the upstream hydraulic grade line at the junction branch point (point b). ‘The water surface elevation in the pit does not represent the total energy of the flow, but is an indication of the upstream pressure head plus some kinetic energy contributed by the upstream flow which has been lost by conversion to an additional pressure head as the flow proceeds across the junction (be in Figure 3.4). The dimension of ec represents the upstream kinetic energy which has not undergone48. FIG.3.4: TYPICAL JUNCTION PIT OPERATION -49. conversion to potential head. The conversion of kinetic energy will vary with pit geometry being approximately 5 per cent for straight through flow and up to 30 per cent at a 90° junction structure. Thus, in Figure 3.4, Equation 3.1 applies: v2 v2 o.os# < qwse- “Py < 0.3 2 cee EQ.3.1 2g Y 2g These figures have been determined experimentally by Sangs- ter et al (1958) for three-pipe tee junctions and by the author (see Chapter 5) for two-pipe bend structures for pit sizes of twice the domstream diameter (B/D, = 2,0), Larger pit sizes can be expected to increase the percentage conversion, but increasing the proportion of total flow contributed by grate flow decreases the percentage conversion. For low submergence depths (3), conversion to potential head increases. Research work by Archer e¢ al (1978) indicates that, for the junction geometries shown in Figure 3.2, percentage conversion of upstream velocity head to potential head may, in some circumstances, be higher than indicated by Equation 3.1: “rt willbe observed that there is better than 80% conversion of velocity energy to potential energy in some instances when the surcharge heads are very low .... but as the surcharge over the exit pipe increases, the proportion of the velocity energy converted to potential energy decreases. “ (ibid p-6) The larger conversion figures obtained by Archer may be partly attributable to the channel benching across the junction, causing the flow to be diverted in an upstream direction. In addition, the use of circular manholes was found to produce "a strong vortex in the pool of water in the manhole” (ibid, p. 6), which may also contri- bute to an increased energy conversion. * Secondary flow entering the junction through a top grate inlet.50. For medium to high submergence heads (V, > Im/s) the figures shown in Table 3.3 have been derived from Archer's results for rectangular manholes. TABLE 3.3 PERCENTAGE CONVERSION OF KINETIC TO POTENTIAL HEAD : DERIVED FROM ARCHER'S EXPERIMENTAL DATA Mean % Conversion Angle of Deflection of Velocity Head o° 10 30° 25 60° 2 The foregoing discussion reveals that it is necessary to differentiate between two pressure head change co- efficients, namely, k, which determines the elevation of the upstream hydraulic grade line, and k,, which determines the water surface elevation in the pit. The role of each coefficient is shown in Figure 3.4 3 Effect of Pit Size and Shape The effects of inlet pit size and shape variations have been studied by Sangster et al (1958) and by Archer et al (1978). Archer's study is confined to the effect of pit shape (rectangular or circular) and examines large pit structures of constant size, Sangster's work includes an analysis of both junction size and shape effects, and shows these to vary with junction geometry. Two cases are considered by Sangster: 0° and 90° deflection.*(Garuronaon & sronra xan nubw caterer) (G50) TW TE waisoyns : F7IS WOOL LHOIVALS MOTd TI paita BIVHS INY FZ/IS XCB AO LFS Fe TMs sais wose-ey 7 PU dog sojnBuoLO0B52. 3.4.1 Straight Through Flow Figure 3.5 (Sangster, 1958) illustrates the variation in the pressure head change coefficient, k,, corresponding to a change in pit size and shape for 0° deflection. Because of the relatively small variations in pressure head change coefficients (0.01 ¢k, < 0.28), changes in pit size and shape produce insignificant changes to the hydraulic effic- iency of such structures. With manhole access and minimum pipe size restrictions, maximum values for B/D likely to be encountered for urban drainage systems would be approximate- ly 2.4, It may be concluded, therefore, that pit shape also produces insignificant changes within the usual design limitations. 3.4.2 Flow Through a 90° Bend Figures 3.6 and 3.7 (Sangster, 1958) present experimental results for flow through a 90° bend. The figures repres- ent pressure head change (k,) and water surface elevation (k,) coefficients respectively. The figures illustrate, for the usual design range (1.0 < D,/D, < 1.25), that the coefficients decrease by up to 0.4 as B/D, is reduced from 2.0 to 1.0. For a downstream velocity of 3 m/s, a variat- ion in water surfece elevation of 180 um may be anticipated by such a change in pit size. Small pit sizes result in a significant reduction of pressure head changes because the wall opposing the lateral is nearly flush with the rim of the outfall pipe resulting in a less turbulent flow across the junction. The use of deflectors is encouraged by Sangster "in moderately large manholes", and “straight walls placed flush with the side of the outfall pipe and opposite the lateral exit, effect- ing a reduction in manhole width, exhibited significantly beneficial effects" (ibid, p. 63). The hydraulic effective- ness of deflectors is illustrated in Figure 3.5. For 90° bend structures, Sangster recommends that, "the data on square manholes generally by used unchanged for53, Legend Ye vel 1.09 Square Manhole” } tS : ios : es tae 7 ie fof ot 147 ‘ . . se foo: ot ter fb met 8G Deltectors Angled tor * Sutectors Coed oF ‘ oa 1.29 Round Manhole © Ls rs 20a rs FIGURE 3.6: EFFECT OF PIT SIZE ON PRESSURE HEAD CiANGE COEFFIXENTS AT 80° JUNCTIONS, SOURCE + SANGSTER ET AL (1958). (ADAPTED WITH MINOR CHANGES TO NOWENCLATURE ) .54. Legend %, _aimbot too Square Manhole = Ou she 103 ary gol oi ot are ke ro me of 8S mod t Seve ®t & 120" Round Mandole > 6 DB, — 173 Nene eS Pi es Devices ® tt — FIGURE 3.7: EFFECT OF PIT SIZE ON WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS AT 80°JUNCTIONS. SOURCE: SANGSTER ETAL (7958) (AOKPTED WITH MINOR CJANGES 70 NOMENCLATURE ).55. for round manholes" (idid,p. 63). This statement seems to conflict with experimental results provided by Archer (see Table 3.1). Application of the data for square pits to circular manholes might slightly underestimate the pressure head changes. 3.5 Combining Flow at Three-Pipe Junctions In Section 3.3, it was shown that, for two-pipe junctions with deflection angles up to 90°, there are two pressure head change coefficients, k, and k,, defining the upstream hydraulic grade line and the water surface elevations respectively. The water surface elevation is located at approximately 0.3 upstream velocity heads above the upstream hydraulic grade line when the angle of deflection is 90°. If consideration is now given to the inclusion of an upstream in-line pipe, the configuration becomes a 90° Tee junction and the hydraulics become more complicated; such a junction is illustrated in Figure 3.8. The hydraulic grade line of the upstream in-line pipe adopts the water surface elevation as {ts elevation (Figure 3.8a). As the lateral flow is reduced and the in-line flow is increased, the conversion of kinetic to potential energy will also be reduced until, for the limiting case, all flow occurs in the in-line main and the two pressure head change coefficients are approximately equal (Figure 3.8b). The water surface and the upstream in-line hydraulic grade line elevations are always coincident, The lateral hydraulic grade line is located up to 0.3 lateral velocity heads below this elevation, depending upon the ratio Q,/Q,- Tables for calculating the various coefficients at such junctions are presented by Sangster et a? (1958). 3.6 Effect of Froude Number and Submergence on Pressure Head Change Coefficients By dimensional analysis and the application of the Buckingham 1 Theorem, Sangster (1958) found that a function- al relationship may exist between the pressure head changeFIGRE 3.8 a. O° MITRE BEND. (Qy 70) AN Ao 1 Laterat Ppe EN mN FIGURE 3.86. O° BEND (Q,=0)- All Sow ty Upstream In-Uine Poe37. coefficients and the downstream Froude Number, F, (ibid p. 14). For a given geometry, the Froude Number may be varied only by varying the rate of flow. For straight through flow, Sangster tested eight different geometries and plotted graphs of k, versus F,. From this information, Sangster concluded that it, "appears inescap- able that the coefficient for a given geometry is independ- ent of the Froude Number ...... In as much as k, does not depend on the Froude Number, it follows that neither does it depend on the rate of flow, but rather is constant for a given geometry" (ibid p, 24). However, under the geometric and flow configuration that Sangster selected to test for a functional relationship between k, and Fy, the pressure head change coefficient, k,. is independent of the degree of surcharge (ibid p. D-15). For other geometric or flow configurations (see Chapter 5) k, is not independent of submergence, s, and, since submergence is, for a fixed geometry, partially a function of discharge, then k, must be a function of the Froude Number. It is unfortunate that the inter-relationship between k,, Q, F, and s was developed by Sangster, resulting in a conclusion being drawn which is applicable only to a limited range of geometric and flow configurations. 3.7 Summary ; Pit Junction Hydraulics The discharge capacity of a single pipe reach is determined by the friction loss within the conduit and by the pressure head change that occurs at the pit junction immediately upstream. For the majority of pit configurations this pressure head change is an unknown quantity. Some con- figurations have been tested and appropriate design data have been established. In general, however, the lack of data inhibits the use of accurate design methods which incorporate hydraulic grade line or energy line computations. The nature of flow across pit structures has been described in Sections 3.3 to 3.6. Information on loss coefficients58. and junction geometry efficiency is limited to that applying to a limited number of cases. The available data have been obtained from the use of hydraulic models. In view of the paucity of suitable data which could be used in the design of junction pits with the wide range of geometries found in practice, an experimental programme, using hydraulic models, was initiated to produce appropriate design data, Details of the programme are set out in the following chapters.41 4.2 59. CHAPTER 4 HYDRAULIC MODELS OF JUNCTION PITS Use of Hydraulic Models Model Construction and Apparatus 4.2.1 Scope of the Investigation Water Supply System Model System and Pipelines Model Geometries Experimental Procedures BES RNR GnRown 4.2.6 Error Analysis60. 4.1 The Use of Hydraulic Models ‘The magnitude of energy losses and pressure head changes at stormwater junction pits must invariably be determined using hydraulic modelling techniques. Such models must conform with geometric and dynamic laws of similarity. Simultane- ous compliance in every respect, however, is not always possible and losses in similarity lead to scale effect errors when model results are extrapolated to a prototype. ‘These errors can, however, be minimized if the models are made sufficiently large. Hydraulic models of stormwater junction pits have been used by Sangster e¢ al (1958) and by Archer e¢ at (1978). These investigators concentrated on junction geometries which have specific local applications in each case. Sangster, for example, tested geometries which are in common use by the Missouri State Highway Department. Archer considered systems where pipes are small, pits are relatively large and sharp bends are avoided. The design data available from these tests have limitations and need to be expanded before an accurate estimate of flow through surcharged pipe systems can be made. An experimental programme involving the use of hydraulic models was established by the author and aimed at reducing these limitations. Details of the programme are reported in the following sections. 4.2 Model Construction and Apparatus for Pit Junction Experimental Programme 4.2.1 Scope of the Investigation In view of the limitations of the existing pit junction hydraul- ic data, an experimental programme was initiated to determine the magnitude of pressure head changes at junction pits with two connecting pipes. The investigation was undertaken for a variety of pipe sizes, pipe configurations, pit geometries and flow conditions. The following constraints were applied to the programme: 1. All pipes were to flow full and under pressure, 2. The range of deflection angles (0) to be tested was to be within the range commonly found in practice, i.e., 0° ¢ 9 < 909.61. Pipe area ratios were to cover the range 1.00 < A,/A, < 2.50. (Commercially available pipes for the models extended this range to 1.00 « A,/A, < 3.29). All pits were to be constructed square in plan and of a size so that the ratio of the pit width divided by the downstream pipe diameter was equal to 2 (i.e. B/D, = 2). Because of the infinite number of junction configurations possible with respect to pit size and shape, the experimental programme was limited to geo- metric configurations typically found in prototypes and, where this was not possible, to configurations which would allow the use of appropriate adjustments to the test data during the prototype design. In arriving at the pit size ratio used in the model tests, consideration was given to the following: (a) standard Department of Main Roads (N.S.W.) gully pit design practice; (b) thé previous experimental investigation of Sangster et al (1958); (c) minimum prototype pit size requirements for access and maintenance; (a) the reductions in pit size ratios that will necessarily occur as a result of increased downstream pipe sizes; (e) current design practice regarding minimum pipe dia~ meters to prevent blockage by debris: ("It is connon practice not to use pipes smaller than 450 mm dianeter" (Institutionof Engineers, Australia (1977) p.146), but sone designers may use pipes as small as 375 mm). Grate flows were to be tested for ratios of Q,/Q, < 0.50. During the experimental programme, how- ever, grate flows were sometimes taken beyond this limit to check trends in data. A limit of Q,/Q, < 0.50 allows design criteria to be formulated for all pit junctions up to the second dowmstream pit in a drainage system. Model discharges of up to 10 1/s were to be used during the experiments. This maximum model discharge was adopt- ed by consideration of a maximum velocity in a prototype system of 6 m/s. Where D,/D, < 1.00, the maximum velocity will occur in the upstream pipe when the grate flow is small. The relevant calculations are62. set out below. Due to the possible free surface effects at the junction structure, a Froude model is used: Y, (max) = ¥, (max) x ay* wee Eq. 41 where V, (max) is the maximum average velocity in the model pipeline; v, (max) is the maximum average velocity in the prototype pipeline; Lg is the scalar model to prototype length ratio The amallest prototype pipe diameter used in Australia is 375 mm nominal (381 mm actual). For a model pipe diameter of 70 mm (the smallest model diameter used), the length ratio, Lg, would equal: ly . 381/79 = 5.44 Vy(nax) = 6 x (5.44)% = 2,57 m/e Q,(max) = Vi(max) x A, = 2.57 x (0.07?xn)/4 = 0.0099 m/s = (say) 10 1/e 7. The practical limits for submergence ratio (i.e. depth of water in pit expressed as a number of outlet pipe diameters, 8/D,) were considered to fall within the range 1.00 < S/D, < 4.0. (Submergence ratios greater than 4.0 were sometimes tested to examine trends in data, but were considered unlikely to occur in prototype conditions), 8. All pipe entrances were to be sharp-edged. It was not feasible to study the effects of rounding the pipe entrance. 9. All pits were to be flat bottomed with no benching or deflection devices. Pipe obverts were to be aligned in accordance with construction techniques practised in Sydney.“SLNINISIIXT NOMINAL YA LNOAYT DvwwHHOS * TH MIF sc “eee wi oR saa ete . sel Sopewicens 2p RE < S < BTS64. 4.2.2 Water Supply System The hydraulic models were supplied with water by pump from a reservoir through a 150 mm diameter overhead xingmain. The pressure in the ringmain was held constant through a constant-head tank located approximately 20 m above the floor of the laboratory. The ringmain is permanently suspended from the ceiling of the laboratory and is fitted with flanged outlet connections. Two such connect- ing flanges were utilized in the model tests. One supplied water to the headtank and the other supplied water to the inlet pit to simulate grate flow in the prototype. Each of the two supply lines was constructed with a p.v.c. flange bolted to a ringmain outlet flange, connecting an 80 mm diameter p.v.c. conduit to the headtank and to the inlet pit respectively. Each supply line was provided with a gate valve to regulate the flow and an orifice meter to measure the rate of flow. The orifice plates were calibrated using a weighing tank. Pressure differences across the orifice plates were observed using mercury manometers for high flowrates and water mano- meters for low flowrates (Figure 4.3)- The pressure differences were converted to flowrates using equations derived during the meter calibrations. Velocity heads and grate flow discharge ratios were calculated using the flowrates determined by the orifice meters. 4.2.3 Model System and Pipelines Headtank: The headtank at the upstream end of the model pipeline (Figures 4.1 and 4.2) was constructed with a height suffi- cient to provide flows of up to 10 1/s through the models when the tailwater tank downstream was fully closed. A head- tank with a height of 1500 mm was found to be adequate. Horizontal stiffeners were provided around the headtank at 300 mm centres for structural strength. A transparentMOT HONOWL LO) ULE way onLzS TFIOW - FP SeASTF “SARLWON YW = EY FAIS6). FIGURE 4.5: FLOW ROUGH A 45 JUNCTION. FIGURE 4.6: FLOW THROUGH 4 25 °JUNENON.68. p.v.c. face was provided for the front of the tank to view water surface elevations. Inlet Pit: Three model inlet pits were constructed for the experiment programme, each pit being used in conjunction with each of three downstream pipe sizes, thus providing a near con- stant ratio of pit size to downstream diameter. TABLE 4.1 CONSTRUCTED INLET PIT SIZE RATIOS ‘ Size (mm) | Outlet Pipe Dia. (mm) Pit No. (B x B) y) Bly 1 140 x 140 70 2.00 190 x 190 94, 2.02 3 240 x 240 127 1.89 Pits were standardized as square in plan and of size such that B/D, = 2.0 (see Section 4.2.1). For pit number 3, B/D, was equal to 1.89, This departure resulted from a changeover to metric pipe sizes in the course of the experi- ment programme. The differences in the B/D, ratios, however, do not yield significant errors in the experimental work and all three inlet pipes have been dimensioned as having B/D, ratios equal to 2.0. The inlet pits were constructed so as to allow the testing of various geometric configurations. Each inlet pit could be used to test ten different model geometries (models 1 to 30 are illustrated in Figures 4.13 through 4.18). A floor was built in the inlet pit to provide a stilling basin, from which an average pit water surface elevation could be read on the accompanying piezometer board. A69. Tas 7 SESeHeerc. ‘palee ‘pit bolton a oo mn, Invert Pipes. FIGURE 3.7: TYPICAL INLET PIT.70. Piezometer tapping was located below the floor to measure the mean hydrostatic head within the pit. To elim- inate errors due to the possible inclusion of a hydro- dynamic head attributable to turbulence under the floor, the pit bottom was sealed at invert level leaving the four corners of the pit fleor unsealed to measure an average static head. In addition, checks were made during testing to ensure that the static head on the piezometer board was representative of the water surface elevation in the pit. Each pit was constructed to a height of 1000 mm above floor level, providing for submergence ratios (S/D,) in excess of those that could be expected in Grate flow was discharged into each pit at a constant height above the pit invert equal to five outfall pipe diameters for each of the models. (Tests performed by Sangster et al (1958) indicate that the height of fall of grate flow relative to the degree of submergence is not a significant factor in the determination of the pressure head change (ibid p. $3)). It would be reasonable to expect that the fall-to-submergence ratio would be mest significant at low submergences. However, Sangster found that, even for submergence depths of approximately 1.5 outfall pipe diameters, the scatter of the experimental data was reduced to acceptable limits using a single submergence paramater (S/D,). Tailwater Tank A tailwater tank was constructed as shown in Figure 4.6. An important feature was the provision of an adjustable tail-gate structure that could be used to vary the sub- mergence depths in the upstream inlet pit without having to change either the upstream or grate flow discharge.72 Model Pipelines Model pipelines were constructed with transparent perspex tubing so that hydraulic behaviour could be observed. Three nominal pipe diameters were used, viz: 70 mm, 94 am and 127 mm. Actual pipe diameters were carefully measured. The most significant percentage error occurred in the small- est pipe size of 70 mm, resulting in errors of 0.2 per cent in nominal cross-sectional area. These errors were consid- ered as being of only minor importance. The use of pipes smaller than 70 mm diameter was avoided to minimize undesirable scale effects. Pipes larger than 127 um diameter presented difficulties in handling and maintenance of pipe-full conditions. Only the 70 mm diameter pipe was used upstream from the inlet pit; all three pipe sizes were used as downstream outlet pipes. Such an arrangement yielded the diameter and area ratios shown in Table 4.2. TABLE 4.2 DIAMETER AND AREA RATIOS USED IN MODEL PROGRAMME Pipe Diameter Ratio of Diameter 5° | Ratio of Areas 5° 70 mn 1.D. downstream 1.00 94 mm T.D. downstream 1.343 127 mu 1.D. downstream 1.814 ‘The range of pipe diameter ratios (D,/D,) tested is considered to represent most practical applications. Pipe diameter ratios less than unity were not tested. Ratios less than unity were tested by Sangster at al (1958) for pipe deflection anglns of 0° to 90°.73. The length required for a pipeline to develop fully estab- lished flow has been stated by Rouse (1950) and by others to be in excess of 25 - 40 pipe diameters. Such a specifi- cation defines the length of pipe which is required before piezometer readings can yield a linear hydraulic gradient. The pipe lengths required are thus significant, and limit- ations in laboratory space and difficulties in handling pipes required consideration. Also, technical limitations had to be considered. For example, for the 70 mm diameter conduit, a pipe length greater than approximately 30 dia- meters would yield high friction losses making it impossible to produce low submergence ratios except for low rates of flow (less than 1.5 1/s). Small discharges consequently increase the experimental errors because the dimensionless pressure head change coefficients are derived by the division of the pressure head change by the downstream velocity head, both of these variables being small and susceptible to larger errors for small discharges. To minimize such errors, pipe lengths were kept to a minimum. Approximate linear friction gradients were found to occur when piezometer tappings were located at a distance greater than ten pipe diameters downstream from the headtank and the inlet pit. Under these conditions, for discharges greater than 2 1/s, the coefficient of determination for linear regression (r?) was, in most cases, greater than 0.99, despite the fact that the flowwas not fully developed. Photographs shown in Figure 4.4 and 4.5 show linear friction gradients for pipe lengths much less than those expected for the establishment of the flow. It was decided, therefore, that for the purposes of reading the common piezometer board to an accuracy of 0.5 mm of water, linear friction gradients could be obtained in much shorter development lengths than is commonly assumed. The pipe lengths used in the course of the experiment programme are shown in Table 4.3.DETAIL & Place pie Tot a0" P= see detail ‘sy a g| + 8 a 8 s x 7 3 +~ 8 a - Piesometer Tops. FIGURE 4.9:‘a1 WA FG : Oly Zeno 4, 2p 28 ‘advL soyaudiaia — At — 1 SSS SS SS 4 / |? Poyap es paids > ie 238 __| | L OOS ~ hag bi cor eria oe T ‘OOF co Oot o002 OOP core - “79y saqvm “(No TPIYP ,09 3 “PPL 04 Sq 2IVTS ews ‘op ',$22) Sooee 30 0, Waa 013921j29 ,06 (0) pd PTY 3 sHeq aged Bverd1 ~ as —— a. . [ a.roaap 2s 1 eee 98 eae | IP eR m8 = ap WoT? 7 Tear = 007 —L or t OF S007 ~ e981 nh Crogpaygee voqwm ofl 9/87 222) ears “004 oy wo Cuan -ypl oy meg bye sowed PM} Sy0q wd PL (A twiaa 2, Wisa77. TABLE 4.3 PIPE LENGTHS USED IN MODEL PROGRAMME Pipe Length No. of Tappings in Pipe (mm) | (@iameter) | Length Exceeding 10 dias. 70 mm I.D. upstream | 2000/ 28.57 6 70 mm I.D. downstream | 2000| 28.57 6 94 mm I.D. downstream | 3400) 36.17 6 127 mm I.D. downstream | 3500| 27.56 5 Metric sized pipes were supplied in 2m lengths. Consequent~ ly, the 94 mm and 127 mm diameter pipes were spliced. Details of flange splices are shown in Figures 4.10 and 4.11. The square flange plates were bored to the exact outside diameter of the pipe using a specially made trepann- ing tool. For each splice, both flanges were clamped and drilled simultaneously to ensure accurate alignment when the acrylic pipes were glued to the flanges, and the flanges were bolted together. A grease gasket was found to be adequate to prevent leakage from the splice. Similar splices were required to attach specially made angle adaptors (see Figure 4.12) between the junction pit and a connecting pipe. The length of each adaptor was 200 mm. ‘wo adaptors were cut for each pipe diameter, the six adaptors being used for the junction configurations and deflection angles described in Table 4.4. The table shows that each angle adaptor was constructed so as to be used for two or more different angles or junction configurations. For example, adaptor No. 1 was used for a downstream pipe diameter of 70 mm as a 22%° bend when fitted to the opposing face of the pit or as a 67%° bend when fitted upside down to the adjac- ent face of the pit. The adaptor could also be connected to the upstream pipe as a 22%°or a 67%° bend. The use of the adaptors provided an economical means of testing bend structures.ot vad eT VTE a s . vision aaa a I} Ns ahd 0 9 | j add a 04 | fp me tan < RO Re a FBG TY, * | 7) ad 09 5394 * pases oy | add oy sq0q | : aad og S304 "HOLY SONY? Ay79. The angle flange of each adaptor was accurately bored to form the required ellipse created by the angle of deflect- ion. The centre of the ellipse was located coincident with the centreline of the appropriate pit face. A flushing plate was provided to each adaptor so that, when the adaptor was bolted to the pit, the pipe entrance (or exit) was flush with the inside of the pit wall. This provided sharp-edged entrances and exits. Similar remov- able flushing plates were provided to the upstream end of the downstream pipe and the downstream end of the upstream pipe so that sharp-edged conditions could be maintained for deflection angles of 0° and 90°. Eight peizometer tappings were provided to each pipe reach. The spacing and location of tappings were detailed as shown in Figures 4.9 to 4.11. The tappings were made from 25 mn diameter acrylic rod which was cut to size, tapped and fitted with.6 mm brass airline fittings. Each tapping was then glued to the pipe at the desired location. Holes of 3 mm diameter were then carefully drilled through the conduit taking care to avoid chipping or burring the inside of the tubing. Typical peizometer tappings are shown in Figure 4.5. Six millimetrediameter hose was used to connect the piezometer tappings to the piezometer board. Wherever possible, tappings were placed upstream from splices in the conduits. In addition to the pressure cappings in the pipes, an additional tapping was provided in each junction pit. This tapping was located under the false floor of the pit and a check was made for each model to ensure that the pressure tapping did not measure additional hydrodynamic head on the piezometer board due to potential turbulence under the false floor. Connecting Pipes co Pits Each pipe was bolted either directly to the pit so that the pipe was perpendicular to a pit face, or was bolted to the appropriate angle adaptor which was then bolted to the pit(91 ‘ou Tepom) 37d zo eovy quUsse[pe uo adrd s/p 03 payoesqe ysy | um fzq (St ‘ou Tepow) atd go eovz Bursoddo uo edrd s/p 03 poyoeaqe gcy | wm /7T 9 (Zt ‘ou Tepow) 37d zo aovz queoefpe uo adtd s/p 03 poyoeaae o¥/9 | um LzT (yt ‘ou Tepow) atd yo eoez Butsoddo uo edtd s/p 03 payoesze o&zz | um LzZT S (OT ‘ou Tepow) ayd yo adez qusoefpe uo adtd s/p 02 payoeaze oy um 46 (6 ‘ou Tepow) afd zo ao"z Butsoddo uo adzd s/p 03 poyouaze g¢y | um 46 9 (IT ‘Su Tepow) azd yo eoeyz quooefpe uo adtd s/p o2 payseaae yg | um 46 (g ‘ou Tepow) aqd zo aovz Bursoddo uo adtd s/p 03 payowage y¥zz | um 46 € (62 8 SZ ‘TZ ‘sou Tepow) a¢d zo e0vz juooefpe uo adyd s/n 03 payouz3E oSy um OZ (ez 8 "2 ‘Oz ‘sou Tepau) qd so Bo"z Butsoddo uo edzd s/n 03 payows3e ycy | um of (y ‘ou Tapow) 3¢d yo aoez qusoelpe uo adtd s/p 03 payoraze sy | um QZ (g ‘ou Tapom) azd Jo e2ez Buzsoddo uo adzd s/p 03 payoraze gcy | wm OL z (Oe 8 vz ‘ZZ “SOU TepoM) 34d zo eDez qUadefpe uo adtd s/n 03 payseaze y¥/9 | mm OL (g ‘Ou Tepom) 31d Jo eoez uooelpe uo adrd s/p 03 payoeaqe 4%19 mn oy Cz 8 & ‘6 “SOU Topoa) 3Fd Jo B0ez Buzsoddo uo adtd s/n 03 poyoeare 4¥¢z | um OL (z ‘ou Tapow) td yo aoez Bursoddo uo adrd s/p 03 payoezae 4¥zz | um OZ T zoadepy Jo uotqe00] pue ay Buy ‘at | ‘oN xoadepy SuOLdVaY HIONY } 9°) QTaVE81. face. An initial test progranme (models 1 to 18) contained geometries such that the upstream pipe was always perpendicular to the upstream face of the pit, and the angle adaptors were always located on the downstream pipe. With the completion of this initial programme, further investigation revealed major hydraulic variations when the angle adaptors were attached to the upstream face of the pit and the downstream pipe bolted directly to the downstream pit face. Consequently, the initial test programme was extended to include geometries charact- erised by reverse orientations. (models 19 to 30). For each model, the pipes were aligned so that the pipe obverts were at the same elevation. This is in accord- ance with the alignment procedures adopted throughout Sydney. (Sangster's tests (1958) were performed with the alignment of pipe inverts). In all cases, the invert of the downstream connecting pipe was located at the elevation of the pit floor. The pit floor was constructed horizontal. No tests were conducted to investigate the hydraulic effects of shaping the pit bottom, such as those conducted by Prins (1976). 4.2.4 Model Geometries Figures 4.13 to 4,18 show details of model junction geo- metries tested. Models 1 to 18 comprise the initial test programme and incorporate six angles of deflection (6) and three downstream pipe sizes (D,). Each downstream pipe diameter is associated with a corresponding increase in pit size such that the ratio B/D, is approximately constant and equal to 2. The remaining models (19 - 30) were tested with geometries identical to corresponding models in the original test82. FIGURE = HYDRAULIC / 7O © PIP S’ZE = (40 MM X /dOMM. UPSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER! 70 pnt DOKWASTREAM «PIPE DIAMETER + Jom. MODEL NOS MODEL V0.6 7 ELELATION. ELEVATION. 5 cers a0"83. FIGURE 9.14: HYDRAULIC MODELS 2-12. POT S12: 190 baba x KSOMM. UPSTREAM PRE DIAMBTER + 70 Mit. DOWNSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER, < St Mit. Mobs 10.7. oneL V0.8 MODEL KO. 2. | ELEVATION. ELEVATION. ELEVATIONF1GURE @./5_! HYDRAULIC MODELS I$ JO 18 PIT SIZE + 240M 2homed UPSTREAM PYRE DIAMETER * JO hm. DOWNSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER + /27 MMT. MODEL Ko. 1d. ArQdeL. Ko. (5. \85. FIGURE 4.16: HYDRAULIC MODELS 12-7 23. POT SIZ +140 Wit x 180 Mbt OPSTREALT PIPE DIAMETER: TOMA DOWNSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER JOM. SN owe PLAN. PLAN86. FIGURE 4.17 i HYDRAULIC _/ODELS 28 7 26. PIT SIZE: (80. Mid ei3OMN UPSTREAM = PIPE DIAMETER - JO 4m, DOWNSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER * St Mu. spores 10. 23. \ ELEVATION87. FIGURE 418° HYDRAULIC MODELS 27-30 PIT SIZE + 240 Wit< Zhong UPSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER « Pw DOWNSTREAM PIPE DIAMETER * [27 HM. MODEL KO. 27 Monee Kio. 28. i i88. programme except that the bend angle adaptor was fitted to the upstream pipe. In these cases, the flow entered the junction pit at an angle inclined to the upstream face of the pit. Thus, for the same basic bend geometry (de- fined by ® and D,/D,), there may occur a number of orienta- tions of the pit relative to the connecting pipe (four such orientations may be compared in models 3, 4, 20 and 21). Significant differences in hydraulic behaviour were observed for each orientation. Each model was tested for the effects of the following flow conditions: (4) variation in discharge, Q, (ii) variation in submergence, S Q, (iii) variation in grate flow ratio, 8/9 For reasons discussed in Section 3.6, variations inprototype dis- charge and submergence are inter-related in the prototype. In the models, however, itwas possible, using the adjustable tailgate, to independently regulate discharge and submerg- ence so that the effect of each parameter could be considered separately. 4.2.5 Experimental Procedures To determine the upstream and grate flow discharges (Q, and Q,), both water and mercury manoneters were used for each supply line (see Figure 4.3). The mercury manometers were used for discharges greater than 2 1/s. For low dis- charges, water manometers were used to measure flowrates. Low discharge tests were found to be necessary for the smallest (70 mm) outfall pipe size, because, in these models, the friction losses in the downstream pipe were relatively large and resulted in high submergence depths for the pit. To test these models with low submergence ratios (S/D,), the discharges were reduced to less than 2 l/s. This pro- cedure produces large experimental errors.89. [38 ] — 35 — \— ~= ptt I LL [ BG : 3° | — | 33/53) 8] [8 [s/s [9] [3 [> [He Lo fs Ole oT SBALanOZ3ld { -yoiang| “ale +S SRORTHOROS sk TFET I | 24 hw :qdw 2omhins seq i "ww id ssayv 7aLY/ ww yd 59 iy A: pd wal irr mw Saul - 50/2) sn]. | = fw) = |» |} wy . ' ot |_| | ‘wt :52/ opp wu Suen) mn eh pay" "© Polo % aN a) ie ae WBNS raaM_ yd WINN Slo Tea : a) a) ; “Mod AwLAMo: sa sh we anys veqedeg]MIOUTAR ardawioa9 [ TON ISL FON COW La3HS_Noilyinow> any_viva] "LISMHS NOY AINDWO INE ware PF FVD90. Initially, tests were run with arbitrarily selected mano- meter settings. The calculation of discharge, velocity and velocity head then followed, As the work proceeded, dis- charges of integer values up to 10 l/s were used directly with known velocities and velocity heads, This procedure minimized the necessary calculations. Geometric and flow data were recorded on data-computation sheets as shown in Figure 4.19. Piezometer tapping chain- ages measured to the branch point of the junction were also recorded. Prior to reading the piezometer board, a number of important checks were made: (i) The piezometer board was levelled. (ii) The water surface elevation in the pit was checked against the piezometer reading for the pit tapping. (iii) Each of the manometer and peizometer hoses were carefully checked for the inclusion of air. (iv) For low flowrates, it was found that the model system took some time to reach hydraulic stability. For high discharges, each hose on the piezometer board was generally read to an accuracy of one millimetre. For low cischarges, where pressure differences between adjacent tappings were less than 1 millimettre, the board was generally read to the nearest millimetre. Readings which were not consistent with the general trend of other readings were not included in the calculations. The firsc and second piezometers downstream of a junetion structure were usually disregarded in this respect. In models where the upstream and downstream pipes were placed on adjacent faces of the pit (such as a 90° bend), and where the continuity of the jet discharge across the junction was disturbed by the pit, the91+ pressure fluctuations were extensive and the piezometer lines were difficult to read. Due to the general turbul- ence created at sharply angled junctions, the pressure variations to a distance of approximately half the down- stream pipe length were extensive and readings were taken as the mean value of the upper and lower readings. Large pressure variations at such junctions led to errors which are reflected in the scatter of the experimental data for these models. Despite such difficulties, however, linear equations for the hydraulic grade lines were usually developed with a coefficient of determination (x?) greater than 0.95. For each of the 2000 test runs,. seventeen piezometer tappings were read, eight of which were located in each connecting pipe and one at the junction pit. Only the piezometer tappings located more than 10 pipe diameters downstream .of a pipe inlet, however, were used in calculat- ions. From the piezometer readings and the respective distances away from the branch point of the junction, two linear regression equations for the hydraulic grade lines could be developed for each test run, using a least-squares fit. These equations were used to calculate the ordinate at the junction branch point and the slope of the friction line. The equations were recorded on each data-computation sheet (Figure 4.19) as "Equation U/S HGL" and "Equation D/S HGL". The equation ordinates thus represent the elevations of the upstream and downstream hydraulic grade lines when extrapolated linearly to the branch point of the junction, and their subtraction yielded theabsolute pressure head change (ap/y in Figure 3.4) occurring across the structure. Similarly, the subtraction of the pit piezometer reading from the downstream equation ordinate yielded the pressure head change plus the degree of conversion of upstream kinetic energy (WSE in Figure 3.4). From the values of ap/y and WSE, obtained in this way, division by the down- stream velocity head yielded the dimensionless coefficients, k, and k,,.92 FIGURE 4.20: DATA Pier FoR Model NO. Z. — PRESSUAL HEAR CHANCE COBFFICIBNT UF. D/SCHARCE Qo. = 224°, Dy=70MM, DLE 70MM, AU, # Koo CPrOURES NDICATE SUBMERGENKE RATS) 20 wo a s 3 1s 36 3 1“ “$B cw BS § “ : 0G ‘ 1 j a Os Bll ht, EB a 5p =~ /Bo 20.00 Bog a Before o o 2 4 . a ” MobEL DISCHARCE Qo (l/s).93. FIGURE G21: Dara PLor FOR Mode Ao. 2. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION. COFEICIENT US DISCHARGE Qo. @222{", Do=Jomm , dus Jom , Way + Loo. Courses NoTE BAMERCENCE RATIOS.) 20 4 . 2a 2 1a oan 2a oe 423 8 Ne “s rd aa 48 2 ea ig ~ 58 sar 80% - sz wa : “a ie 3 » _ i ; : os 4 § we a ag Le ey “an —2e/% * 9.00 2s 4% og BM ay 2 % oO ° z 4 € e a mone. piewarce Qe (Li).94, Having determined these coefficients, the values were plotted for each test run against the downstream discharge Q,, with grate flow and submergence ratios as secondary parameters Typical data plots are shown in Figures 4.20 and 4.21. Such plots served two purposes: 1. to check the consistency of data; and 2. to enable the visual interpolation of pressure head change coefficients, k,, and k,, for the submergence ratios sel- ected in the presentation of design curves as detailed later in Chapter 5. All data were plotted onto figures such as those shown in Figures 4.20 and 4.21 as soon as the test had been run and the coefficients computed. Sixty such figures were plotted (two for each model) and these are included in the Appendix. 4.2.6 Error Analysis n_of Or: Calibrat e Meters Two orifice meters were manufactured and calibrated for the measurement of upstream and grate flow discharges. Calibration equations (Equations 4.2 and 4.3) were deter~ mined using power curve regression analysis. Q = 0-349 Cah) 9-500 wee Eq. 4.2 and Qg = 0.348 (any O55 cee Eq. 4.3 where Q, is the upstream discharge (1/s); Q, is the grate flow discharge (1/s); and oh is the manometer reading in mm Hg. Ten volumetric measurements were taken for each calibration and the coefficients of determination (r?) were both record- ed as 1.000. With this level of correlation, errors due to meter calibration were considered to be insignificant.95. Reading of Orifice Meter Manometers Mercury manometers were used on the orifice meters for discharges greater than 2 1/s, using one millimetre divisions. A reading error of one millimetre at this discharge results in a Z percent error. The diameters of the model pipelines were measured to an accuracy of 0.1 mm, resulting in a possible error in cross sectional area of 0.3 per cent for the 70 mm diameter pipe. There- fore, since the possible error attributable to the flow velocity is the sum of the individual errors of discharge and cross-sectional area, a one millimetre error in manometer reading will yield a total error of 2.3 per cent. For higher discharges, the maximum error is reduced, Provided the manometers were read consistently to an accuracy of 0.5 mm for each column, errors resulting in velocity head calculations could thus be maximized at 4.6 per cent at a discharge of 2 1/s. For discharges less than 2 1/s,water manometers were used. Under these cordit- ions errors in discharge measurements were reduced. Piezometer Measurements In the majority of tests, linear regression analysis for the determination of friction slopes yielded coefficients of determination (r?) greater than or equal to 0.98. Friction slopes for each pipe were determined for each test run and recorded to four decimal places. In Figure 4.22, friction slope has been plotted against the outfall discharge for model numbers 1, 2 and 3 (70 mm diameter pipe). The points plotted are for randomly selected data. The accuracy of piezometer readings increased with increasing discharge (the errors being reflected in the scatter of the data). At a discharge of 2 1/s, the variation in the outfall friction slope represents a maximum error of 3.6 mm in theSLOPE FRICTION 96. FIGURE 4.22 yl FRICTION SLOPE US. DISCHARGE BY 4 RANDOM SELECTION OF DATA Tt! FOR FOAM PIPE, ph NOTE INCREASE Ik) DATA SCATTER WITH DECREASING. DISCHARGE, DISCHARSE (Qo) L/s- 097. ultimate pressure head change over a 2000 mm length of pipe. The error in pressure head change may be set simply as a proportion of the downstream pipe diameter as follows: D, Maximum Error at 2 l/s = Gs Sos Di/i8 70 which corresponds to an absolute error of 21 mm for a 375 um diameter prototype, and 50 mm for a 900 mm diameter prototype. This order of accuracy may be considered to be adequate for practical design purposes.98. CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Introduction Flow Straight 225° Bends at 45° Bends at 67%° Bends at 90° Bends at Through Junction Pits Pits Pits Pits Pits99. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 5.1 Introduction Over 2000 tests were performed on thirty different models of various geometric configurations. All models were test- ed for three different values of the diameter ratio Dy/Do and for a range of values of the hydraulic parameters Q,/Qo and $/D,. These data have been processed and the results are set out in graphical form in Figures 5.1 through 5.35. A commentary on the processing of the test data is included in the Appendix. The figures show pressure head change coefficients and/or water surface elevation coefficients plotted against diameter ratios for various submergence and grate flow conditions. The figures have been cate- gorized into five sub-groups: 1. Straight through flow. 2. 22% bend structures 3. 45 9 bend structures. 4, 67%° bend structures. 5. 90 ° bend structures. Each category is detailed in Section 5.2 to 5.6 respectively. In some models, the submergence ratio was restricted due to model limitations. For example, with large downstream pipe sizes, submergence depths significantly greater than three could not be obtained due to low friction losses in the downstream pipe. In these cases, the graphs are shown with dashed lines representing an extrapolation of the curves beyond the range covered by the experimental data. When interpolating for intermediate grate flow ratios (Q,/Q,), the pressure head change and water surface elevation coefficients should not be read as a linear function but rather as a function of (Q,/Q,) in accord- ance with Equation 5.1: =k 133 + [a - ea) ‘| (jp = Ky) ve Ege 5-2100. k, is the coefficient to be calculated for a an grate flow ratio, @ coefficient value when Q,/Q,-0 and Ksq is the coefficient: value when Q/Q,= 0.50 For submergence values of about 1.5 outfall pipe diameters, experimental evidence suggests that the loss coefficients decrease until the limiting case of pipes not flowing full occurs. In some models tested, loss coefficients started to decrease for submergence depths higher than 1.5 pipe diameters. In the formulation of the charts, the assumpt- ion has been made that the pressure head change coefficients will only start to decrease for submergence depths less than 1.5 outfall pipe diameters. This assumption has been made on the basis, first, that errors in experimental read- ings are potentially larger at low submergence depths (see Section 4.2.6) and, second, that interpolation of coeffici- ent values for submergences between 1.5 < S/D, « 2 could not be made from the figures if the loss coefficients decrease suddenly within this range. This assumption may lead to conservative re~ sults for some geometric configurations but seeks to eliminate the experimental difficulties and subsequent risk of signifi- cant errors when the model submergence ratios were tested at values of 1.5 outfall pipe diameters or less. In the practical application of the graphs, the derived loss coefficients, k, and k,, must be miltiplied by the down- stream velocity head to determine the upstream pressure line and water surface elevations respectively. Table 5.1 provides a quick reference to the various bend geometries tested.TABLE S.1 | QUICK RE GUIDE 70 GEOMETRIES TESTED . — —— Fig. 5.2, 5.2 112, 113, ft) oe tt papte 5.2 102 je | Pigs 5.3, 5.4 2 — a s na, 115, —<—"| —~ Table 5.2 103 TES ——_ CoS ig.5.5-5.0 | lle-n0 3 3 [SA iris. 5.5 4. as° Fig. 5.9, 5.10 120, 121, — XN able 5.2 103 \ pig. 5.9, 5.21 | 120, 122, £ os) SES table 5.2 103 6 Fig. 5.12 - 5.15 | 123 - 126 2 Fig. 5.16 - 5.19 | 127 - 130 & Fig. 5.20 - 5.24 | 131 - 135 2 Fig. 5.25 - 5-28 | 136 - 139 wo. Pig. $.29- 5.35) 140 ~ 146102 5.2 Flow Straight Through Junction Pits For junction pits in which the inlet and outlet pipes are in-line and which have flow entering through a top grate, Equation 2.19 can be reduced to Equation 5.2: x -2[1-2 () 7] wes Eq. 5.2 * Equation 5.2 has been plotted in Figure 5.1 and the results compared with experimental data obtained by the author and by previous investigators. These include Archer (1978) who tested junctions with D,/D, equal to 1.00 and Q,/Q, equal to zero, and Sangster (1958) who Presented experimental data for Q,/Q, 2qual to zero but extrapolated his results for grate flow ratios of up to 50 per cent. Of particular interest in Figure 5.1 are the negative pressure head change coefficients obtained when D,/D, < 1.0 (j.e., at an expansion). At low grate flows the negative coefficients are large in magnitude and are attributable to deceleration of flow across the junction. Experimental Results Experimental results have been plotted in Figure 5.2 for a submergence ratio equal to 2.5 (i.e. S/D, = 2.5). Use of Table 5.2 allows modification of pressure head change coefficients for other values of submergence (1.5 © S/D, s 4.0), Modifications need only be made when Q,/Q, is not equal to zero. The water surface elevation in the pit coincides with the elevation of the pressure line of the upstream pipe at the junction branch point (ie, ky = k,)- * Because of the large number of figures in this Chapter, the figures have been grouped together at the end of the Chapter. Figure 5.1 is located on page 112.103. cc szo- ozo- sro- oro- §oO- oz-0- wO- wo- g00- vOO- S1O- zro- 6o0- 90'O- £0°O- | 1 [ oo fovexe) 000 ooo o00 ozo Ke} aro 800 woo s5'O bro oO wo Wo Oso oro OFO O20 ao "hid Fk 10 FRY LWTRLNMOT Fak WO PEu~007 $/ NOu>WAI~ StL IO LAY WINTYE FHL TeBWA SNOUT AL KINO VTBVITddY "BS WUSHS ES RB Lice” Canmntece Sr My ONY Py AL SINTHA NOuvoiNGO Gar FE NvKL YIM Og YO SITKA Yad FTBKL NOL voi GOLY Ip or104. In most design applications, the ratio D,/D, approaches unity whilst the grate flow ratio Q,/Q, approaches. zero. Thus the loss coefficients, ky and k,, would, in most instances, lie within the range -0.5 < k,, k, < 0.5. For the common case of equal size pipes (D,/D, = 1.0) and for grate flow, Q,, equal to zero, coefficients k, and k,, may be set equal to 0.2, being independent of submergence ratio, S/D,. For expansions (D, < D,), negative pressure head change coefficients will occur. Negative pressure head changes are considered acceptable in design practice provided that the upstream hydraulic grade line elevation, as determined, is located above the upstream pipe obvert, thus avoiding negative (less than atmospheric) pipe pressures. For in-line flow, loss ccefficients are generally lower than those values which have been used traditionally in design practice. Maximum pressure head changes of two downstream velocity heads are obtained at high grate flow ratios coupled with low submergence depths. 5.3 224° Bends at Pits Two configurations using 2249 bends were tested: (i) the junction branch point located on the downstream face of the pit. (ii) the junction branch point located on the upstream —. EA? face of the pit. > o Configuration (i) : Branch Point located on Downstream Face of Pit. For junction pits having the branch point on the downstream face, Equation 2.19 may be reduced to Equation 5.3: A ko 2 [2-52 - (G8) “eos 94] ve Eq. § 3105. Equation 5.3 is plotted in Figure 5.3 along with the author's experimental data for submergence ratios equal to approximately 2.5. The good correlation which exists between the equation and the data suggests that Equation 5.3 may be used for pits with a 224° bend configuration when the branch is located on the downstream face of the pit and when the submergence depth is relatively high. Figure 5.4 has been developed from the author's test data, and applies specifically to a submergence depth of 2.5 D,. For submergence ratios other than 2.5, values obtained from Figure 5.4 should be modified by using Table 5.2. The elevations of the upstream pressure line and the water surface are coincident. Negative pressure head change co- efficients apply to some combinations of pipe sizes and grate flow contributions. Values of pressure head change coefficients, for most design applications, will be less than those values that have been traditionally used in design. Configuration (ii) : Branch point located on Upstream Face of Pit. When the branch point is located on the upstream face of the pit, the hydraulic efficiency of the junction is re- duced since the upstream flow momentum is partially lost in crossing the pit. This interference across the junction precludes the theoretical analysis previously derived. Figures5.5 through 5.8 have been prepared using experimental data for pressure head change and water surface elevation coefficients for a range of submergence depths (1.5 < S/D, < 4.0: when the branch point ia located on the upstream face of the pit. For this condition, the magnitudes of k, and k,, are considerably greater than values shown in Figure 5.4 for equivalent diameter and grate flow ratios.All pressure head change coefficients are in each case, the upstream pressure line elevation. 106. the water surface elevation To performance, the location of the upstream positive and, is located above improve junction pipe should be shifted to ensure that the branch point is located on the downstream face of the pit. Under these conditions, hydraulic efficiency similar to case (i) above may be anticipated. 5.4 45° Bends at Pits For 45° bends, the following junction pit configurations were tested: qd) (i) (iii) (iv) the junction branch point located on the downstream face of the pit with the downstream pipe on a 45° angle connected to the downstream face of the pit; the junction branch point located on the downstream face of the pit with the upstream pipe on a 45% angle connected to a side face of the pit; the junction branch point located on the upstream face of the pit with the upstream pipe on a 45° angle connected to the upstream face of the pit; the junction branch point located on the upstream face of the pit wich the downstream pipe on a 45° angle connected to a side face of the pit.107. Many configurations other than those described above can be obtained by changing the location of the junction branch point and/or the pit-to-pipe orientation. The hydraulic principles can, however, be demonstrated using those configurations described above as examples. Relative hydraulic efficiencies of the configurations tested can be deduced from Figures 5.10 through 5.19 which have been prepared using the experimental data. For 45° junction pit configurations (i) and (ii) above, the experimental results may be compared with the theoret- ical solution obtained using Equation 5.3, This is shown in Figure 5.9. For the purpose of discussion, each configuration has been considered separately below. Configuration (i) In Figure 5.9, Equation 5.3 is drawn together with the plot of experimental data for the junction geometry describec. Good agreement is observed between the equation and the data. Since the branch point of the junction is located on the downstream face of the pit, the loss coefficients k, and k, will be equal in magnitude and negative pressure head changes will occur at expansions, i.e., (Dy k,). Of interest, how- ever, is the fact that the loss coefficients can decrease with increased grate flow (see Figure 5.12 for example). This may be explained by an increased pressure component acting in the upstream direction when the upstream flow jet strikes the side face of the pit. This upstream force (or backpressure) will increase the loss coefficients. Increasing grate flow ratios will, by reducing the upstream flow momentum, reduce the backpressure effects and lower the loss coefficients. Figures 5.12 through 5.15 have been developed using the experimental results. Loss coefficients k, and k,, have been evaluated for a submergence range of 1.5 < S/D, < 4.0.109. Configuration (iv) This junction pit geometry is characterized by an upstrean pipe perpendicular to an opposing pit face, creating a strong backpressure effect in the upstream pipe and a corresponding rise in the hydraulic grade line. In addition, flow across the junction is hampered severely by what amounts to a 135° deflection angle once the jet hits and is reflected off the opposing face of the pit. For this configuration, Figures 5.16 through 5.19 present pressure head change and water surface elevation coefficients for a submergence range of 1.5 < S/D, < +.0. For the most common design applications (D., equal to D, Q, approaching zero), loss coefficients would generally lie within the range 2< k,, k,, ¢ 2.5. Such values greatly exceed those that have been traditionally used in design practice. 5.5 _67%° Bends at Pits Two 67%° bend configurations were tested: (i) the upstream pipe angled at 67%° such that the junction branch point was located near the downstream face of the pit: (di) the downstream pipe angled at 675° such that the junc- tion branch point was loc- ated near the upstream face of the pit. Configuration (i) Of the two 674° bend geometries tested, this configuration, with the branch point of the junction located near the down- stream face of the pit, was found to be more hydraulically efficient.110. Even though che branch point is not located on the downstream face, a trend toward a theoretical solution is evident from Fig- ure 5.20. Negative pressure head change coefficients will occur for low values of D,/D,. Water surface elevation coefficients, k,, however, will be greater than the corres- ponding pressure head change coefficients, k,. A closer agreement between experimental results and the theoretical solution (Equation 5.2) may be anticipated by shifting the upstream pipe so that the branch point of the junction coincides with the downstream face of the pit. Experimental results have been plotted in Figures 5.21 through 5.24 for both pressure head change and water surface elevation coefficients for a submergence range 1.5 Os as 07 08 “9 10 DramereR RAO U/d,.113 EISCRE 5.2 © COEFFICIENTS FOR STRAIGHT THROUGH FLOW, roe suamencevcn Rare Toy =25 COR OTHER SUBMERCENCE RATIOS, MODAY ACCORDING TO TALE $2) ve ‘ a= 02 ¢ 25@ i . i t : § 3 “ / NEGATIVE PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE. Che 0) os os 07 08 08 20 orameren pario Yb,PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFEICENT “key” WATER, SURFACE ELEVATION COEFEICIENT “Kiy’, 114 FIGURE $3 COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS ITH EXPERIMENTAL -t 2 3 “4 -s EQUATION 5.3 (Q¢/Qe 20.50) | BQUATION 5.2 (Rc/a,=0.20) EQUATION 5.3 (7@¢/e, = 0.00) © BXPERMENTAL VALUES. 4 FOR Sig 225 ae os of o7 o8 °2 1o DIAMETER RATIO be’ ‘he AND KIMTER SUBPAGE ELEUBTION COEPHCENT eg, / CHANCE. COBFFICIEN'T PRESSURE HEAL Eiguee Sd: “4 us. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFIOENTS FOR 22f °BENDS AT PIT VUNCTIONS—-BRANCH POINT ON DOWNSTREAM FACE OF PIT— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 2.5. ELEVATION. —. 00 —— oF a. a —— “ 0.00 x JL (ore FOR OER, SUSMERSECE RATIOS, USE TABLE 5.2.) "NEGATIVE PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE" am Che H/d,.Kee PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBKEICENT Zo 8 Me 10 18 O8 1s £2 08 1l?. FIGURE 5.6. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS (hy) =0R 22$° BENDS AT P/F JUNCTIONS — BRANCH ~ sPOINT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF FIT, —— SUBHERGENCE RATIOS OF 15,2.0,3.04ND LO os os 07 °8 oo 10 Dratierer Rain Pu/p,, 7 ___ R6/R0#0.50 — R6/Qg% 0.00 os 08 = a? 08 og fe DAMETER RATIO Di/ty, eS Raq 20.99 | %/Qo=0.0 Os Oe oO7 Of Oo bo DVAMETER, RATIO Py/Do. i _- “7 ee oo Re/Qo = 0.50 J EESZZ) eo G/%W 29.0 Os 06 a7 08 02 Lo DAHETER RATIO MD, .ky. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT 25 10 os lls. EIGURE SP: WATERSURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS (En) Par 22¢° BENCS AT PIT BUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED OV UPSTREAM FACE OF P/T-— FOR SUBMERCENCE RATIO OF 2.5. ooo OSs OF o7 OF °28 fo DIAMETER RATIO PWD, .\ Wares SURFACE ELEATON Coerercienrs ‘hy, % 22 18 16 12, 17 13 i) 16 o8 119. FIGURE $.8 ! WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS: un) FOR 22$° BENDS AT P/T JUNCTIONS — BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT —— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 1.5,2.0,3.0 AND 4.0. —a ~~ ee _— | ee Oe o7 o8 os 10 4 Ovamerer Rario— Sua OD — 2 25/Qe*0.00 4 a — ao Os oe o7 o8 os to 4 piameee. RATIg %/be. ——___. %&/@,=0.% ee _ 4 ooo Re, 20.00 os 06 07 06) (oe to DiAmerer, Rano PY/bg ——. ReR=0.@ G/Q, 0.00 os os O7 O8 os 10 piamereR, RATIO by5 Re HEAD CHANGE CoeraENT key” WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS COEFFICIENT Shy, % PR. ° - 2 3 s 120. FIGURE $.2 > COMPAR/SON OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR, eras? EQUATION $3 QG/Ro,= 9-0) EQUATION $3 ,_ (Rc/Qe 20.20) ds EQUATION $3 (Rfas = 0.0) 0 EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR CASE). Sloe 2.5 ~b BePERMENTAL DATA POR CASE (Ji). Voye2.5 {________ os o6 o? O86 O98 ro DIAMETER RATIO PYDy.ke PRESSURE HEAR CHANGE COEFFIC/ENT } : j g § 2 -4 s 121. FIGURE 5.10! PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE AND WATER, SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS MOR 45° BENOS AT P17 RANCH POINT LOCATED ON DOWNSTREAM MOTE }7OR OPER SUBERCENCE RATIOS USE TABLE Si "vecarive Peessene Head cHaves * te <2) o7 on of DiauereR Rarig P/by. ho“ ‘- ‘he 4 PRESSURE “EAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT AND WATER SUREACE ELEVATION) COEFFICIENT | ° “1 2 “3 a “5 FIGURE S11 * 122 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE AND WATER SUREACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS FOR 45°BEND AT PIT YUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON DOUNSTREML FACE CE PIT FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 2.5. He. 20s /75 _, PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE” —_ (CONFIGURATION (71 J)- aw DrauenR rare %/b,PRESSURE HEAD CHance coerricienrs ‘ky / 123 EISAE S12! PRESSURE MEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS (hu) FOR 45° BENDS AT PIT RAICTIONS BRANCH POT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT -— FoR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 2.5. COONFIGURATION Ci) 25 20 1s 10 os os os ar 08 os 10 Diameren RATIO PY/p,“ket Coerricrenrs HEAD CHANGE PRESSURE 28 2a 22 20 18 2 22 20 +8 6 22 20 16 1 dp 22 18 6 “a 4. FIGURE S. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBEEICIENTS (ku) Th) FOR 48° SENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS — BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF P/F — OR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 1.5, 2.0,3.0 AND 4.0. ——_. Commreurarion git) + 7 oo os oe 07 8 as 10 DIAMETER RarIo PU/po. 4 = Q¢/Qo#0.00 ns Qc /0=9.50 as os o7 08 °9 to 4 DAMETER RATIO PY/Oe 4 (S7Be =3.0 Rc /Ro =O. ——— > Qe/Re= 0.09 tO OoOooO_,T.—>sTtot os oe o7 Og Og 40 4 Diawsrer Rarig u/by. Jo. [$70.=25) 4 ee _ Ro fe 20. ee Be =0.00 Os Og 0.7 ee 0.2 ho DIAMETER RATIO Ou/De .125. ELGURE $. (dl : WATER SURFACK ELEVATION COBFFICENTS: (By) FOR 45° BENOS AT PIT JUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED OV UPSTREAM FACE OF P/7 —-— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 2.5 CONFIGURATION) ¢ 3S i 5 3.0 g boas Ss 4 a i 20 R/O 3 “ —~. A ¢/@o = 0.00 fou x 10 Os 6 a7 aa re) 10 Diamarer RATIO U/by' ko WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS 28 a 22 26 22 Z0 +8 22 20 8 “6 oy 20 we hie +2 126. H/GURE $./5_° WATER, SURFACE ELEVATION COSFFCIENTS hy) FOR 45° BENDS AT PITH UNC ITONS —— BRANCH ROINT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT OR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 15, 2.0,3.0 AND FO . (Courisurarionsti)). R¢/Re 70.50 Re /Ro 70.0 Os os Or o8 os te 4 DAMETER RATIO Ov/Oo 1 [sPe=20 6/2020. | Qe/Re 70.00 Os o6 o7 o8 os to 4 oumerer, eario bs Qo /Go = 9. oo c/o" O00 os og o7 °8 o3 Lo. 5 pasereR RATIO %/D. | [Sasso | 8% /eq =O. 7 Qc/@ 20.00Ske % PRESSURE HEAB CWANCE COEFFICIENT” Bs 25 20 1s 127, FIGURE S16: PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE CORERICIENTS (ka) FOR 45° BENDS AP PLT JUNCTIONS — BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON THE UPSTREAM FACE OF THE PIT —— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 07.5. Cooneraumarion Cv) eM) a a Ps hug as 06 °7 oe os to piameren RATIO PU/Dy,& CORFEICIENTS: CHANCE, MEAD PRESSURE 28 26 24 22 26 24 22 20 8 24 2 20 8 6 th 2 20 a “6 128. FIGURE 5.17: PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFFICIENTS (hu) FOR 4S ° BENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS. — Beanew Pons LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT — FOR SUSMERGENCE RATIOS OF /.$, 7.0, 3.0 AND 4.0 (CONFIBURATION CV) - , 4 Nv R¢/Qo = 0-50 _ aot ———— G/2.70.00 os oo a7 a 09 to 4 DIAMETER, RATIO 5u/d,. | 26 /Qe+0-50 jo arrow Os Os a a OF Lo 4 DIAMETER RATIO Pu/py 1 Q¢/Qo20.00 4 —— J Qe/2o40.50 + os 06 09 08 09 w 1 DIAMETER RATIO Du/dy 4 a /Q7 0.00 4 20 Lae Qa/Qe# 0.50 sn a Se as os o7 08 oD 10 DIAMETER RATIO. Du/ Oowe WATER SURFACE ELEUATION COEFFICIENT ‘ky ” 40 3S ao 2g 20 129. FIGURE $18? W/ATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFERIENTS (hu) FOR 25° SENOS AT PIT JUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON) UPSTREAM FACE OF THE PIT— FOR SUBUERENCE RATIO OF 25. . ea (EONPIGURATION C/V) yf wse hohe Re/Qe 70-0 Qo/0q 0.0 Os 0.6 67 08 oF ho pramerer eario 4, .‘ o WwareR SuREACE ELEVATION CosrricieNT ky,“ oe do ae 32 od 78 oe 22 8 130. FIGURE $15) WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS (Kw) FOR 45° BENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED ON UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 1.5, 20,30AND 4:0 = (CONFIGURATION Gic}) + 4 fe, =0.% Qa = 0.00 Os oe o7 08 29 ho 2c/Qq* 0.00 Q/a20.% ale So oT ooo os o6 oF O68 °9 10 DIAMETER RATIO %U/d, | ae Qe/@40.00 —— Po = 0.50 os Oe o7 08 os lo Os oe °o7 °8 08 40 DrameTeR RArio PU/d,PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEPPCENT 7 “2 13l. FIGURE $.20: COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS. WITH EXPERMENTIL RESULTS FOR oe of? EQUATION S.3 ° CQY/@* 0-50) \ EQUATION 5.3 (Qi/Qo = 9-2) os 8 o7 08 oo 10 oramerer RarIo YD,' PRESSURE Wead CHANCE CoBmmicienrs ‘ky% 25 As os 132. FIGURE $.21' PRESSURE MBAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS (hu) ©08 67" BENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS — BRANCH POINT LOCATED NEAR, DOWNSTREAM FACE OF Pir. FOR SUBATERGENCE RATIO OF 75. Peg, Ke m—hey Ps i ws — =} a Re a te = a } —}. 1 PLAN. Q6 4g = 0.80. QW = 0.00. os os o7 o8 O2 to Dramerer eario "4/04.' crance coerecenrs ‘ky! HEAD PRESSURE 18 Mt to 18 oy to 4 bo 8 Ma to 133. FIGURE $22: PRESSURE NEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS Vk) FOR C7$° SENOS AT P/T_LUNCTIONS BRAKE PONT LOCATED NEAR DOWNSTREAM RACE OF PIT FOR, SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 1.5, 2.0,.3.0 AND 4.0. | ecm Q¢/@e 70.5. [S20 LF a e/a eco S/dg =H 4 ef =0.00 os os 7 Soe os ho 5 DiamerER Rario 4/bo. Qe Og =O. [Sq 230 Vos = 8: Qc /ee 20.00 or oo 1 J Rca # 0.50 Q¢/Qe 0.00 or 6 °7 / 08 os to ouwerin Rare Pb.WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COBFEICIENT “ky, / 30 25 20 10 134 BIGURE 5:23 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS Ch) FoR 67g ° BENDS AT A/T JUNCTIONS — BRANCH POINT LOCATED NEAR DOWNSTREAM FACE OF P/F —— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIO OF 2S- QeQ,~ 0.50 QRc/Qy 0.00 os os or o8 0° 10 DiamereR RATIO PY /oy.\ Rw ELEVATION COEFFICIENT WATER SURFACE. 24 20 16 22 18 Le 18 1 ho 18 4 40 135. FIGURE 5.24! WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS (ky,)~ BRANGH POINT LOCATED NEAR DOWNSTREAM RACE OF 2/7 FOR, SUBMERGENCE RATIOS 1.5 , 2.0,3.0 AND 4.0 %K/Q2 0-60 4 a Qc/Ae"O-CO \ os Oe 7 o8 oD ho 20. J Le Wfasro-sa S222), Qc/@e = 0.00 do t os os 07 08 o> 10 : DIAMETER RATIO O%/Dy QO * 0.50 4 Rye 0.00 1 of 06 °7 og ry te 7] \ os o« o7 os of ho prareren eario M//oyPRESSURE HEAD cHance CoEFrICIENT “ke, ’, 3.0 25 20 1s 10 os 136. ELGURE $.25 ¢ PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS (k,) FOR b7F° BENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS —— BRANCH PONT LOCATED NEAR THE UPSTREAM] FACE OF THE PIT. PIT—— FOR SUBMERGENICE RATIO OF 2.8. Os 06 °7 08 08 Lo piamertrR Rario %u/o,’ cwance — coerricrenrs ‘ke % HEAR PRESSURE 28 2 Pv) 22 zo i 2 1g +e 22 z0 18 6 M4 2 20 eT 3 MM 137 F/SURE $.26-° PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFFICIAITS. (ku) FOR 67° BENDS AT PT JUNC HVS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED NEAR THE. UPSTREALT FACE OF PIT-— ROR SUBMERGENCE, RATIOS OF 1.5,2.0,3.0 AND HO os oe 0 ae 09 0 piamerer Rrra >+/by os as oF Oe ay pramerer, RATIO PY/de EEX] om =a 2a} Qc/Ra Os 06 07 a8 09 DiamereR RATIO P%/d9 Os a6 o7 a8 a9 to piamerer Rario Puy.¢ \ twarer SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS Ykoy 3s 39 25 20 ts to 138. FIGURE 5.27! WATER SURFACE BLAVATION COEFFICIENTS (hy) FOR 67£° BENDS AT PIT UUNCTIONS. — BRANCH POINT LOCATED NEAR. UPSTREAM FACE OF PIT —FOR SUBMERSENCE RATIO OF 2.5. Qe /Qq* 0.00 oo Roe, = 0.50 os a6 a7 oe os to DramereR RATIO PY/d,.hu” CORFFIOENT- WATER SURFACE ELEVATION Je 30 92 ae v4 26 1a oa 16 139. FIGURE $.28 ! WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COBFFIVENTS: hy) FoR 67$ °BENDS AP P/F JUNCTIONS —— BRANCH POINT LOCATED NEAR UPSTREAM FACE OF F/T —— FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF /.$,22.0,30 AND4.0 4 Bees) Rafe 20.8 . nn os oe o7 oe 0.9 10 oramertR RATIO PU/a,. | \ Ios _\ /De* 70) NN oN aofgtoo0 6, = 0.59 as Os 07 os 02 40 ovmerer RATIO PA,140. ELEYRE $29 > HYDRAULIC IMPROVEMENT OF 90° BENDS AT PIT SUNCTIONS. © YUNCTION BRANCH FONT, + 70a Wath, ke 1.4402 =r + FOR Dy/p, 21, ky %O3S+0.65 eho + RR Vases, ky 0.3402 20s tS Le141. EISURE 5.30! COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL, RESULTS WITH THOSE OF OTHER INVESTIGATORS, (PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE CORFFICENTS AT 20 Sunerions) a PLAN. 25 » AUR, Soy21-5 : THEORY & § 20 g — 2 no SANGSTER ET AL (1958) 1s FEHB (ALL S/oa). - 2 < AUHHOR (5/2 = 25) 2 3 7) gOS Z g © mercares Saucsres Dara PLOT NO CURVES GIVEN BY SUNGSTER. 70 CommA2e OTiER CRATE Flow earies. ° Os 06 07 ag a9 lo piameréR, rario /d,142. FIGURE 5.31 RESULTS WITH THOSE OF O7HBR NVEST/IGATRS (WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COBFFICIENTS AT + COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL, WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT “ky ~ 30 2s 20 ss os \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 20° Sun cr7ons . \ \ \ v ee last 09 Cart) \ \ sumer quays 00 (S525). —_—f~ THEORY a 0 MOICATES SANCSTERS DATA ROT NO CURVES GWEN BY SASTER TO COMPARE ODER GRATE PLOW RAnOS. ne ee ee ee os 0.6 a7 a8 DIAMETER, RATIO a Pu/p,. 10143 FIGURE $52: PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFERIENTS Chu) FOR 20 [BENDS AT PIT JUNCTIONS —— FoR SUBMER@ENCE RATIO OF 2.5 em 25 Qo/Qe = 0.% “ > 2 x ~ iy } Q¢/Qq = 0.00 g ! j (zzz 2 3 os ' E 4 as os a7 a8 0d 10 piamaren Rario %4/d,HEAd cwANCE. CoEFFIcENTS ‘k, PRESSURE 24 22 20 14 42 bo 14a, FIGURE 5.33» PRESSURE MEAD CHANGE COBFEICENTS Chu) POR 20° BENDS AT PIT_UNCTIONS —FOR SUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 1-5, 0293.0 AND 4:0, 7 — 05 1 Qc /e —— SAREE Os ag 07 08 oF 4 4 pamerer RATIO Pb, | Se Jee os 06 07 0s a uw Du/do bs 0 67 0 a9 wo Diamertr, RATIO 4/dg145. FIGURE 5.34 ‘WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COSEPIC/ENTS (ky) FOR 20° BENDS AT PIT _JUNCTIONS — FOR , WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT ‘ku, ue oa roe Mo os 95 SUBMERGENTE RATIO OF 2.5 a8 0 ag 03 pvameren Rario *Y/h,- osuamace ELEVATION coesricienT “ey, WATER 34 32 30 28 26 26 24 26 24 22 24 22 20 16 146. FIGURE 5.35! WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COBF CENTS Gr) FOR S0° BENDS AT PIT JuncTIons — FOR SQUBMERGENCE RATIOS OF 18 , 2.0, 3.0 AND 4.0. ]/Qq79.0 0 0 0s 09 Rc/Qo 29-0 c/Q 20.50 4 7 08 09 ” Qc /% 70.0 << sfeez 3] 06 07 08 09 7] pramerer RATIO *Y/dy147. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS148. CONCLUSIONS The work contained in this thesis includes a consideration of closed pipe and open pit junction structures used in stormwater drainage systems. Hydraulic losses at such junctions constitute a significant proportion of total system losses, but the lack of design data to estimate these losses does not always permit the use of an accurate design method based on energy principles. The purpose of this study has been to research the magnitude of hydraulic losses at junction structures and to provide data which could be used in storm drainage system design. A general theoretical solution has been developed to determine the magnitude of pressure head change coefficients at closed pipe junctions. Data which have been published for a wide range of commercially available pipe junctions show that the theoretical solutions proposed yield values of energy loss and pressure head change coefficients which could be used for design purposes. Similarly, losses at closed pipe junction structures for which data have not been determined experimentally may be evaluated using the theoretical solutions derived in this thesis, In such instances, derived loss coefficients will generally produce conservative results. For pit junctions, few data have been published and an experimental programme was undertaken to expand the available data which could be used for design purposes. An important conclusion which may be drawn from the results of this test programme is that the location of the branch point of the junction (i.e., the intersection of the centre lines of the upstream and downstream pipes) has a controlling effect on the hydraulic operation and efficiency of the junction pit. The junction pit tests conducted in the programme covered a range of configurations and it was noted that the effic- iency of the pit structure increased when the branch point was located close to or on the downstream face of the pit.149. The most hydraulically efficient structures were those which had the branch point located on the downstream face. By assertion, it would appear that the same basic principle would apply for junction pit structures which are character- ized by more than two connecting pipes converging to a single junction branch point. Such an assertion is not currently supported by experimental evidence but is a logical extens- ion of the conclusions drawn within the scope of this thesis. For structures where the branch point is located on the downstream face of the pit, several poirts may be noted: 1. Pressure head change coefficients are consider- ably less than those values which have been traditionally used in storm drain design practice. In Australia, a requirement of 1.5 downstream velocity heads has been set as a design standard by both local government and road authorities alike. Typical values of coefficients (for zero grate flow) derived in this study are given in Table 6.1: TABLE 6.1 : Typical values of k, and k, for Branch Point on Downstream Face of Pit. vy, 8 = 00 @ = 2240 8 = 45° 0.7 - 1.95 = 1.60 - 0.90 0.8 - 0.95 - 0.60 0.00 0.9 - 0,20 0.00 0.45 1.0 0.20 0.30 0.60 2. Negative values of the pressure head change co- efficients develop when the diameter ratio D,/D, is less than one. This is evidenced in Table 6.1. A deceleration of flow (i.e., the * values extracted from Figures 5.2, 5.4 and 5.10150. provision of an expansion) may be used, therefore, to overcome other (positive) losses attributable to changes in flow direction or the addition of a secondary (grate) flow. For practical purposes, the water surface elevation in a junction pit may be considered to be coincident with the upstream hydraulic grade line elevation (i.e., k, = ky): The pit size and shape does not significantly affect the magnitude of the loss coefficients. A closed pipe junction theoretical solution can be applied to determine pressure head changes at junction pit structures provided that, (a) an allowance (ak) is made for the presence of the pit structure itself (0.20 downstrean velocity heads for two-pipe junctions and, say, 0.3 downstream velocity heads for three-pipe junctions; and (b) an allowance (ak,) is made for submergence effects in accordance with Table 5.2. Alternatively a modification for submergence may be made to the theoretical solution given in Equation 2.19 using Equation 6.1 Oke = [s 4& Gr.) Pars Cod) “7 Cia.) wes Eq. 6.1 The junction pressure head change coefficient can thus be derived from Equation 6.2 : Ky = Kuccnoommt oh + 4ks vee Eq. 6.2 where K.(eneory) CaM be developed from Equation 2,19:isi. A ay A Kueneory 7 27 2 (2) cose, + 4 (a) (a) cose, cos cosé, Q, _ 2p A. ~ an, GEE + Siay UY Rabe Bey ‘D Go. Bg 2.19) For a two-pipe junction, setting p, and R, equal to zero, A a 2 KuCeneory) 7? [ - x (dg) ome, ve Ea 6.3 ‘a and, similarly, for a three-pipe junction, Ky (eneory) is given by Equation 6.4: 2 (Ge) sorts 4 BRE) (ie), cosh, cosé, + 2 8 CS) A) Kuceneory) 7 - Eq. 6.4 (for a three-pipe junction, it must be assumed, pending further investigation, that the lateral pressure line coefficient, k,, will correspond to k,, and k, when the branch point of the junct- ion is located on the downstream face of the pit. These conclusions do not apply to pit junction structures where the branch point of the junction is not located on the downstream face of the pit and consideration should be given to the following points: 1. Loss coefficients are generally higher than those values that have been trad- itionally used in design practice. Typical values determined in this study are set out in Table 6.2.152. ‘TABLE 6.2 ; Typical values* of k, and k, for Branch Point Not _on Downstream Face of Pit 7) e = 6n0 we k k, 0.7 2,052.90 1,702.50 1,50 2.40 0.8 2.10 2,60 1.80 2.35 1.65 2.10 0.9 2.15 2.50 1,90 2.25 1.75 2,00 1.02.20 2.40 © -2.00 2.20 1,85 1,90 2. The water surface elevation within the pit is located above the upstream hydraulic grade line by a distance of up to 0.3 upstream velocity heads. (This value, however, may increase for very low submergence depths). For a three- pipe tee junction, the water surface elevation will correspond to the upstream in-line pressure line. The lateral pressure line elevation will be located below the water surface by up to 0.3 upstream velocity heads. Thus, k, equals k,, and ky < ky ky 3. The pit size is an important factor in determining the magnitude of loss coefficients. These coefficients are minimized when pit sizes are kept to a minimum. 4, A closed pipe junction theoretical solution is not applicable. Data should be extracted from the appropriate figures. Where it is not possible to locate the junction branch point on the downstream face of the pit, consideration should be given to the use of deflection devices such as those outlined by Sangster et aZ (1958) and to keep pit dimensions as small as is practically feasible allowing for access and maintenance. values extracted from Figures $.16, 5.18, 5.25, 5.27, 5.32, 5.34153. In summary, either experimental results or empirically derived equations have been developed for the range of pit junctions that were tested in the experimental pro- grammes. It is envisaged that this data will be adopted in urban storm drain design and will eventually be included in a manual that will lead to an accurate design approach for surcharged storm drain systems.154. CHAPTER 7 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYlo. ll. 12. 13. 155. ACKERS, P. Investigation of Head Losses at Sewer Manholes, Civil Engineering (tondon),Vol. 54, No. 637, 639, July, Aug., 1959, pp. 882-887, Sept. 1959, pp. 1033’- 1036. AMBROSE, H. H., Head Losses in Miter Bends, Univ. of Towa, Studies in Engineering Bulletin, No. 35, 1953. ANDERSON, A. G., STRAUB, L. G., Hydraulics of Conduit Bends, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, Bulletin, No. 1., Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Dec.’ 1948. ARCHER, B., BETTESS, F. AND COLYEK, P.J., Head Loss and Air Entrainment at Surcharged Manholes, Hydraulics Research Station, Report, IT 185, Wallingford, England, Nov. 1978. ARCHER, W. H., Loss of Head Due to Enlargement in Pipes, Transactions, A.S.C.£., Vol. 76, 1913," pp. 993 - 1026. BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Bureau of Engineering, Design Manual for Sanitary Sewers, Towson, Baltimore County, Maryland, USA, 1964. BLAISDELL, F. W., MANSON, P.W., Energy Losses at Pipe Junctions, Proceedings, A.S.C.E. Vol. 93, No. IR3, Sept., 1967, pp. 59 - 78. BLAISDELL, F. W., MANSON, P.W., Loss of Ener py at Sharp Edged Pipe Junctions, Technical Bulletin No. 7283, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C,, 1963. CHOW, YEN TE, Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Co., N.¥., 1959. CHOW, YEN TE (Ed.), Yandbook of Applted Hydrology, McGraw Hill Book Co., N.¥., 1964. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Bureau of Engineering Manual Storm Drain Design, Part G, Dec., 1973, Office Standard No. 115, Hydraulic Analysis of Junctions, Storm Drain Design Division, 1968. CLARK, J.W., VIESMANN, W., HAMMER, M.J., Water Supply and Pollution Control, 2nd Ed., International Textbook Co., 1971. COLYER, P.J., The Effect of Surcharging on Discharge Through a Pipe, Chartered Municipal Engineer, Journal of the Institution of Municipal Engineers, April 1977, pp. 60 - 62.14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22, 23. 24. 25. 156. COLYER, P. J., PELNICK, R.W., Storm Drainage Design Methods - A Literature Review, Report Iv? 154, Hydraulics Research Station, 1976. CROLEY, T. E., Hydrologte and Hydraulic Computations on Small Prograrmable Calculators, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Univ. of Iowa, 1977. CROW, D. A., WHARTON, R., A Review of the Literature on the Division and Combination of Flow in Closed Conduits, B.H.R.A., Bulletin 1W 937, Jan., 1968. DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, N.S.W., Waterway Calculations for Urban Drainage, M.R. Form 371B, Aug., 1963. FAVRE, H. On the Laws Governing the Movement of Fluids in Conduits under Pressure with Lateral Flow. Revue Universelle des Mines, Eighth Series, Vol. XIII No. 12, Dec. 1937 ‘Translated from the French by Agricultural esearch Service, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, Univ. of Minnesota] . GARDEL, A., The Loss of Head in the Flow Through Tee Branches, Bulletin Technique dé la Suisee Romande, No. 9 and 10, 1957 [Translation supplied by Agricultural Research Service, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, Univ. of Minnesota] GIBSON, A. H., Hydraulica and its Applications, Constable and Co., London, 1961. KARAKL, S., Fundamentals of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits, Paper presented at Symposium on Control of Flow in Closed Conduits, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1971 (see ref. Tullis, J.P. (Ed.) ) INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUST., Australian Rainfall & Runoff, Sydney, Aust., 1977. JENS, S.W. (Ed.), Design of Urban Highway Drainage, U.S. Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 20590, Aug. 1979. KING, H. W., Handbook of Hydraulics, Fifth Edition, Hill Book Co., 1963. KINNE, E., Contribution to the iydraulic Losses in Branches, Bureau of Reclaimation, US Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1955.26. 27. 28 29. 30. 31. 32. B. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. KIRCHBACH, W., Loss of Energy in Mitre Bends, Trans. of the Munich Institute of ydraulics Bulletin 3 (1929). Translation by A.S.M.E., pp. 43-64 (1935). McNOWN, J. S., Mechanics of Manifold Flow" Transactions, A.S,C.E., Vol. 119, 1954, pp. 1103 - 1142. MERRIMAN, M., Treatise on Hydraulics, 10th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, N.¥. 1916. MILLER, D. S., Internal Flow - A Guide to Losses in Pipe and Duct Systems, B.H.R.A., England, 1971. NIAZ, S. M., 4 Study of Converging Flou in Pipelines, thesis presented to Iowa State University, Iowa City, 1947. PETERMANN, F., Loss in Oblique-angled Pipe Branches, Special Publication, A.S.M.E., 1935. PRINS, R., Storm Sewer Junction Geometry and Related Energy Losses, M. App. Sc. Thesis presented to Univ. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Dec., 1975. QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, Urban Road Design Manual, 2 volumes, 1975. ROUSE, H., Fluid Mechanics for Hydraulic ingineers, Dover Publications, N.¥., 1961. ROUSE, H. (Ed.), Sngineering Hydraulics, John Wiley and Sons Inc., N.¥., 1950. SANGSTER, W.M., WOOD, H.W., SMERDON, E.T., BOSSY, H.G., Pressure Changes at Storm Drain Junctions, Bulletin No. 41, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Missouri (1958). SANGSTER, W.M., WOOD, H.W., SMERDON, E.T., BOSSY, H.G Pressure Changes at Open Junctions in Conduits, A,S.C.E. Trans. Vol. 126, pt. 1, 1961, pp. 364-396. 7 YO P pp SCHUBART, W., Energy Loss in Smooth and Rough Surfaced Bends and Curves in Pipe Lines, Transactions of the Munich Hydraulics Institute, Bulletin 3 1929, [Translation A.S.M.E. pp. 81-99 (1935)]39. 40. 41 42. 43. 45. 46 47 49. 158. STANDARDS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, Design Charts for Water Supply and Sewerage, Australian Stan- dard, A.S. 2200, 1978 . STAROSOLSZKY, 0., Vizugyt Koalemenyek [Hydraulic Engineer No. 1958, Imprimerie Universitaire, Budapest, 1958. [Translation supplied by Agricultural Research Service, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota] . STEVENS, J. C., Theoretical Energy Losses in Intersecting Pipes, Engineering Neve Record, Vol. 97, No. 4., July 22, 1928. TULLIS, J. P. (Ed), Control of Flow in Closed Conduits, Proceedings of the Institute, held at Colorado State Univ., Aug., 1970. VAZSONYI, A., Pressure Losses in EJbows and Duct Branches, Trans., A.S.M.=., Vol. 66, Apr. 1944, pp. 177-183. VENNARD, J. K., Elementary Fluid Mechanics, Wiley, N.Y., 1961. VOGEL, G., Experiments to Determine the Loss in Right-angle Pipe Tees, Technical Memorandum 299, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, 1932. WEBBER, N. B., Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineers, 8.1, Edition, Chapman ‘and Hall, 1971, London. WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. I & II, Denver, Colorado, March 1969. YEVSEVICH,V., BARNES, A.H., Flood Routing through Storm’ Drains (Part II1) - Evaluation of Geometric and Hydraulic Parameters, Hydrology Paperc, Colorado State University, Nov. 1970. ZANKER, K. H., BROCK, T.E., A Review of the Literature on Fluid Flow through Closed Conduit Bends, B.H.R.A., Bulletin, No. TN 901, July, 1967.APPENDIX TEST_DATATEST DATA Test data determined from the experimental programme are plotted in Figures Al to A60. Two data plots have been prepared for each of the thirty models tested, being pressure head change coefficient (k,) versus discharge, and water surface elevation coefficient (k,,) versus dis- charge respectively: For each data plot, grate flow ratio (Q,/Q,) and submergence ratio (S/D,) have been used as secondary parameters. The data contained in this Appendix have been interpretad to produce the experimental results presented in Chapter 5. For most models, the grate flow ratio (Q,/Q,) was tested for values of 0.00 and 0.50. in some models, intermediate values were elso tested to verify the interpolation of the test data. The effects of the grate flow ratio has been established from this information and reported on in Section 5.1. For each grate flow ratio, a submergence range of 1.5 < S/D, < 4.0 was also tested. Submergence ratios have been numbered on both data plots for each model. Thus, for example, in Figure Al (Model No. 1), pressure head change coefficients have been determined for grate flow ratios of 0.00 < Q,/Q, < 0.50. For each of these grate flow ratios, a range of submergence has also been examined. Likewise, in Figure A2, water surface elevation coefficients have been determined for similar ranges of grate flow and submergence ratios. In the interpretation of the data, the effect of discharge Q, was considered to be reflected primarily by the submerg- ence ratio (S/D,), since, in prototype application, the submergence will vary only with variable discharge. Where variations in derived loss coefficients occurred for constant submergence but with variable discharge, test results have been interpreted for discharges of approxi- mately 6 1/s. This selection eliminated the higherpotential for experimental error at low discharges and represents a medium value of discharge and velocity in the prototype application (for example, 6 1/s flowing in a 94 nm diameter model represents a velocity of 2.44 m/s in a 750 mm diameter prototype) . The effects of variations in the diameter ratio (D,/D,) are reflected in the data plots for constant angle of deflection 6. Thus, for example, Figure 5.2 has been derived from an interpretation of Figures Al, A2, Al3, Al4, A25 and A26 which have all been plotted for 6 equal to 0° All experimental results included in Chapter 5 have been produced from a similar interpretation of all other data plots.‘ke’ PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COEFFICIENT 1s 10 os As3 FIGURE A: DATA PLOT FoR MoDeL N°S, PRESSURE MEAD CHANCE COEFFICIENT” US. DYSCHARCE Qo 20%, O92 70mmM, Dyz 70MM, 404A =/.00. (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMERCENCE RATIOS .) © 0% 4 + 2% . |+ xx . t= + eX 8 nBE~ " 667- Tike eo Ae /Ry2 OH SHY 964 —Q6/Qo*0-40 beh Sanbide, SET gree —Qo/Qo+0.30 260 M100 8 ae rae $8003,09-¢- £980 Qg/ig? 0.20 Sie ADO 4s _y 70 29.03} Re 5 2006 $80%820>—Qc/Qq*2/0 2ad ay 336 3a 33) a 2 IS ae gat® 4g —2e/RotO-00 329 ° z 4 € a 0 MODEL DYSCHARGE Qe (t/s)Anh FIGURE AZ) DATA PLOT FOR MODEL No. /- WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT” VS DISCHARGE Qa + 20°, Do = 70m , Dy» omy, AefAy = hoo (remes Woresre suenaevte ears) 4 Of Geare FLOW. . of = 2% 5 Fae | Be . N= + 0% . 16+ - 2% " pat ow ‘UM ; 2 x 9th a5 : ee os ee ie b eet He sa HE te 3 a pee — @a/leo Of é : Bt ewe 29% swe i 35+ — Qc/Qo#0.40 oo _| ae at ; 2a /Qo* 6 2 AA 5h 3 44 shat — defeat E 0“ £ 26-0 x to q ae 4 goo) ae 460 £BS ym 42 — Qofag2 0.20 8 x 8 Boos ' g ° 4 ‘6 8 7) Mov discvarce Q, (4/8).A-5 HISURE AZ: DATA PLoT FOR Mode Ne. z. PRESSURE. HEAR CHALICE COBFFICIENT UP. DISCHARLE Qo. @= 224°, Do 270MM, Dy = 70MM, 42%, +100 CPICURES INDICATE SUBMERCENCE 247708) 200 29 29 a) v2 oe aw 20 Q 4 ig 86 =0.50 - om 44 an Fe 8 226 & 3 we 8 ‘ | j f os J an 500 8 tg Ey Mb an ox —Re/Rot0.00 ° MobeL DiscMaRCe Q, (t/s).A-6 FIGURE Ad DATA PLOT FOR MabéL No. 2. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT US DISCHARGE Qo. @ +224", De = Jom , Dut Jonna , Aya, +100. @ovees Nowe savercence RAr/05.) 2 s 246 a 1 27 28 oe oe & 3B aw am ve “ ig 50 toy - $7 787 we wo 3 3» g 4 4 a ¥ i ¥ goo | § 47 « Le se 42 3B 17 5 __Q6/Q +9.00 za a MO 136- 1g Fo 4 Lye 1 yo ae R6/H*9.0 zo _ ag 19 ope 32 2B- 370 zp FR sm 7 ee si0- e —— — %/Qo= 0.90 3K 236- oe 7 is je ay ABH fe lr a o 2 4 6 & 10 meee = bisewarce Q, (Uh).FISURE All: DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 6 PRESSURE HEAL CHANGE. COLFRICENT US. DISCHARGE Qy. = 90°, Do= 70MM , Byx pom, Ayay= noo 25 | 27 (reves oicare suameacence eames) GCwoleaes 26a + 0:52). 10- zo | 2 ae 29 2 Sy ure 5 eee, aH 6x 9 a7 ax Buzs 79 Te i 260 1 ang —— %aRa* 0.00 1S 4 ro ne hy aoe ' an b-00- ie te 3 i = 5 10 4 os ° 2 4 6 8 o‘ WATER sunnace Exeuarion: coemmreenNr ‘ky,’ A-14 ELGURA AI2 | __DATA PLOT RAR ModéL Kio: 6 , KHATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT ‘ki US DISCHARGE Qo. Mw 2s 20 Ws 2G, Du = Jory , Do» 701m, Yay #100. (PIRES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS) (ompcates 2G/Ay = 0-0). 257 ta 20 20 28> 28 8%- 254 a $3 20H, (Bos B 0 3p. 0 — 28 ype np, es? PP ae a6 7% ue 26 oe 2M st FE a ame 4m jae A5- “ 37 oy 228- 4g. Sir 22- ; TR He we- ba- BR 20 MobeL BISCHARGE Q, (Lh). @/% 20.00 Qc/@a? 0.50A-15 FIGURE A13: DATA PLOT POR MODEL Kb. 7. PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COLFRICIENT” hy Vi. DISCHARGE Qe. = 0°, Byz S4mm, Dur Pomms, y= 1803 (HeURES INDICATE SURMERGENCE RATS), 20 4 Ne hate 1s am 2g: - 40 SA- a ; tm ate gy . 2a. S~ My j i o oy i 2 ‘0 ” is i su HE | e/a ro-ze ° an VERS 2 3 a ad = g 0 me & a SR 18 ones asa! ~ ok Pp i 1g ‘a at I sy 1g wR as | 1 “20 7 ° z 4 e 8 : 0 i MODEL DISCHARGE Qq (l/s).A-16 EIOURE AlAs DATA PLOT FOR /JODEL 7 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qo. @=0°, Do = Stam, Dy= 7Omm, Aof,, = 1-608 « (FIGURES. INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS). z 7 rate 23 20 ae o- ! 4 3 4a sae 2 a 3 g 5 od ° 7 10 7 —— 7 cd i 8 a # x 28 2m 4 n 8 22 a d { sat 13 2B RB ae 13 ot %Qy* 0.00 x 298 2 . c@e 2 se 38 MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (l/s)cHance cosrrcenr ‘k,/ PRESSURE HEAR A-17 FIGURE AIS: DATA PLOT FOR MoDEL NO. & PRessues NEA CHANGE COEFFICIENT” VS, DISCHARGE Qo. = 22f? , de = Sent, Dye om, Gay 2/8OF (Frovres Woreare suameeceee RA7I05). 2 4 oe Ble —— ayfg0.8 ' | 48 hed) ° sag q i $2 5 ME. @e/agz 0.00 hs 26 ws sass te zat “2 ° 2 ¢ € é& CJ Moves Discuaact Qy (L/s)-¢ A-18 FIGURE AIG: DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. B or WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT hy US DISHARCE Q,+ 2.228%, Dy = Pom, Oys Rima, Way? 1.803. (FIGURES INDICATE SuBMERLEMCE RATIOS) 2 ,] (+ mowares %/a,=0.) We Be 26- sa 2 0! 4 Alm ; g ; 0 » ¢ - Q E x i a ft : 1 12 “a 1 4 1 set # ¢/%o? 0.00 4 361 2s i ova x g 284 22 20 fo o 2 4 ‘6 é 0 move. piscuanae Qo (Us).‘ke PRESSURE HEAR CHANCE COSFRC/ENT A-19 FIGURE AIT DATA PLOT FOR MmdEL No. 9 PRESSURE. HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS US DISCHARGE Qo - 1 “A, #1603. 245°, Dy 70MM , Dy= Stun. (PORES NDOATE SUBMERGENCE RATES) 188 hu a8 rs 28 9 /@=0.50 ‘ sq 8/%2 0.50 . Qe/tg 20.00 ° z 4 6 e 0 MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (b/s).hee O WATER SURFACE. ELELATION COEFFICIENT A-20 FIGRE A'S. DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 2. WATER SURSACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT ky," US O/SCHARGE Qo 245° Dus pomm 2&2 pram 404, = 1.608 (POures DCE SuBMERGEICE A705) 2 (~ morcares 2/Q, * 0.50) ras 27- SRO! - al get ce born bee 1 4 ° -| “$0 157 ” ‘a re 32 25 a0 Ff —— &,=0.00 2 2g ze Se $90 2h 3m - 4 2 eS ° 2 ‘ 6 8 fo MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (Ys).PRESSURE HEAD CHANCE COEFFICIENT ‘ky EIGURE AIQ : DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NIB. /O. 30 25 20 1s 10 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFACIENT US. DISCHARGE Qo 045°, Oy= Jom, Bye Saint, BA,» |.803. (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS) (Conoicares °e, = 9-50) nas 4 iS 2s 18 2.06 PE 4; 8 4 4h gy oe ced - J op a se 8 1a 380 - 43- Ba2- 4t8~ 29 398 520- an. 2.9- ap. Page ° 2 4 6 a 0 ModkL DISCHARGE Qo (l/s)., ku WATER SURRACE ELEVATION — COBFFICIENT™ MATER, SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENTS VS DISCHARGE Qa. 30 28 20 ts 40 A-22 FIGURE AZO! DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 10, @= 45° Des Jom, BrStmn , “Way = 1.803. BLRES INDICATE SUBMERBENCE RATIOS). 18s NOTES PQ, 0.50) 382. h6 2as- 3.20- 305- Mm - © a6 2g SR - 3a- 2° soq- 360- ade a 520- 48 32- aa Mover disowance Qo (l/s) os 439-’ Heab chance coereicenT ‘ke PRESSURE A=23 EISURE Al: DATA PLOT Foe MODEL NO. 11 so 28 20 10 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT VS: DISCHARGE Ro: 07 67° Ou Jom , Bor Stig, AeA = 1-803. (FIGURES INDICATE SUSMERBENCE 2470S). (~norcares 2a, =0. 2D) 201 2a ype PMO 4 20 zo oat ae 29 nr - ~ se BE ber is Sete SR 599 41 2p 4a 49 364 10- a7 49 28 ae 354 46) on én 4 $a am MODEL DISCHARGE Qo v4).A-24 FIGURE A22 : DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO./t UATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qo + 226%?» Dee Joins , Doe tam Ay = 1808 (FIGURES INEYCATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS) - 30 4 (—nocwes %/a, = 0.99.) od 20 co 25 4 Ze 34 om 5 6 2 oo ue - as 5 “” 348 f ap 2 : » . © 26 4 3 sat z a i 40- ete g 66 557 2 Ros 4 i g Ror oto ° z a é é od prone. DISCHARGE @ (U8).A-25 FIGURE A232 i DATA PLOT FOR MODEL MoO. 12 PRESSURE HEAL CHANCE COEFRICIENT US DISCHARGE Qa. © = 90%, 292 Otimy Dy =pommt, Ay? 180. (Crowes ociTe Scaezcente RATIOS) (H WOICATES Qo/Qq = 0.52 ) 2 oe 7 #100) 20s zits 18 246 20 + ge 29+ ~: 2.06~ Ba ww te bette 3a - 18- 20 3m WB + an me me 2D 3920 Go ous | ase 44-396 per 288 489 SB SSS as 3S 4.2) ae 38 * ox 3 60 h 3 ‘3 10 4 os ¢ 6 e 0 MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (LS).A-26 FIGURE A. OaTrA PLOT FER MODEL Nd. 1/2, WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COGFFICIENT VS. OSCHARCE Qe Os 20°, 0, 7% 401, O,> Sei, A, = 1-608 « (FIGLRES INDICATE SUBERGENCE RATIOS) Bo © %@,- 0.) 25 20 iS 1 ° 2 4 ° 6 ” MObdEL DISCHHRGE Qo Ys).kot PRESSURE HERD CHANCE COBFF/CIENT A-27 FIGURE A2S? DATA PLOT FOR MODEL No. /F PRESSURE HEAD CHASICE COBFFICIENT Ky US DISCHARKE Qo - ° 820°, De = 27mm , Burton , hy 2 3292 (PIOURES INDICATE SUBMERCENCE RATIOS) Zz 7 Enercares Pay = 0.80). 183- 2a ae 25- 2 3O~ ° 4 2 4 “4 4 20 ne 12 -6 + ° ” 4 6 8 0” R. Mover DISCHARTE Qo (b/s).A+28 FUGUE AZB: DATA Plot FOR MODEL No. /3. LATER SURGACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qo - hae! WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT “6 O70°, De 270 Mi, Be 127m, Why = 3.202. (FIGURES. INDICATE 2.BMERZENOE RATIOS) ] EC mowsires %h,= 0.50) i se 4 2p 738 208 i tL ° 2 4 6 6 fo MoveL DISCHARGE” Qo (l/s). 2p 3ze 7aee PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFFICENT A-29 FIGURE A2?. DATA FLOT FOR MODEL NO. /Z PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT Ky US: DISDHARGE Qo « C= 22f9, Dy= pom, Qy=l27 m1, Of, 23.202. (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RAT?OS) 2 4 (nos Sa, = 0.93) 7 5 cg °o 4 2 mi 12 1a me ’ 3 "et yoo ° z 4 . é to Modal DISCHARGE Qo (Lh).A-30 FIGURE A428: DATA PLOT FOR MODEL No. /é. WATER, SURFACE BLEVATION COBFFIC/IENT- VS. DISCHARGE Qa. = 2279, Des 70M, y= ern, A, = 3202. POURS INDICATE SUBMEREENOE RATIOS) Compras %y,=0.50) ie \ 5a 2 J Q 3 3 2 j i mB 3 3 gs ~<« 4 1s ; Sow 23) rn +6 3A ° 2 4 6 a to MODEL DISCHARGE @, CYS).A-3L FIGURE AZ: DATA PLOT POR ModsL NO./S PRESSURE HEAL CHANGE COEFRIIENT YS DISCHARGE Qo. @:45°, Dox /27M 7 Dye pont , Yau» 3.292 (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RaV0S). z 4 C Novcares C42. 270.53) a: be ai ° 4 . > x 2 2 4 6 a as oe 1 2m 120 is 3 tm yo Hd 4 3 8 2 a -6 ° 2 4 6 é 0 Movi DISCHARGE Qo (l/s) 2o/Qq* 0.50 2/2 = 2.00Ax32 FIGURE A30 = DATA PLOT FoR 10DEL NO. 1S. WATER SURFACE EEUATION COEFFICIENT VS QOISCHARGE Qo. hye ’ WATER SUREACE ELEVATION COBFACIENT 2 45°, Byes 127Mt , Dy Pouma, 40h, = 3.2: 2. (CAIURES INDICATE SBMERGENCE fear) 208 (© morcares 2G/Qq > 0.82). 133- 293- 143 231 22 19 oN 4 ec 76- 32- 128 159 é fs MODEL, DISCHARGE Qo (l/s).PRESSURE EAD CHANCE CoEFECIENT ‘ky! A-33 £IGURE A3/: DATA PLeT FOR MODEL NO. 16 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT US. DISCHARGE Qy . 62 45°, Dos rzpunt, Dye poms , A7Aya 202, CPICURES INDICATE SUBMERBGENCE RATIOS) CH INDICATES O6/Qy 2 0:0) 3.0 4 19 25 aa 17 20 | 3.06 1s 4 16 8G 206 1S 69- 165 — 30 36 MODEL DISCHARGE Q, (L/)-FIGURE AS2 | DATA Flor FOR MobaL NO A346 16 HATER SURFACE ELEVATION COBEFICIENT US, DISCHARGE Qo. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CosFRrCIENT ‘Ey % 35 Bo 25 e455 Dye 27K , Dy = Jo mmr, Ao.= 3.292. 7 15 28 3.05 22 245 op 30 29 19 * 327 187 au 3 38 (FIOURES KIDICATE SUBHERGENCE RATIOS) C- worcares 25/Q, =0.50) M5- 19 bes- 2 ModEL Discwaace Qo (Us).A385 FIGURE ASS: DATA PLOT OR MOOEL NO. 1/7 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFAICIANT US. DISCHARGE Qo. = Of? Datla , pom, Wh. 28-222, (PIGCRES INDICATE SLUBMERCENCE RATIOS) MM 4 C-morcares: Cex, = 0-5) 8 4 ‘ > 168 x 1865 19 3 ‘ at 168 25 zw 18 i . ne 3 tee » an : ‘om 3 on 29 28 y 2 0 Lt ° 2 4 e é 0 Model DISCHARGE Qo (Ys).“ane 6 SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT WATER WATER SURFACE, ELEVATION COEFFICIENT Us. OYSCHARGE Qo + 3s 2s A-36 EISURE ASH! DATA PLOT POR MODEL NO. 17 O27, B= 27H, 2 > Pours, om *3.282. 6 4 88 1 20s cd 29 2H 32 as 34 1 36 300 (ACRES (NDICATE SUSMERBENCE PATIOS) | CC mocwres Gly = 050), 16 1.88 26 3u- ° z 4 6 8 “ MovéL dIScHARGE Qo (k/s).! i A-37 FIGURE ABS * DATA PLor FOR f40D2L NO. 18. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS US. OYSCHARGE Qo + 25 20 1s 10 os O= 20° , Qa2 laze, D2 011, Ay = 3.202, (FIGURES WNDICATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS) - A nmecares %/Q,* 0.25) CH norcares %/Q, -O.B) 187 20- 228- 20s. 2y Bae - 206 267 209 2a ox MabEL DISCHARGE Qy (Ys).WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CasrercenTs ‘ky, % A-38 FIGURE A386 ° DATA PLOr FOR s70DEL NO./8. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFROIENT [S, DISHARGE Gy 3S as 20 ° 2 4 62-8 2 C2 , 2.272701, + poms o/s onan, (PICURES INDICATE SUBMERGEIICE Ba7705) Crmecares Be/Q,=0.59 _) 4 ya Ih 1S 139 13. 9 187 Py 2.05 2B oe 220 26 205 306 307 267 z6 We 3 2 2a- 228 rn rr a SR- MredeL DStMARGE ee (Ys). Bute14% PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS: 2.0 coe 10 os A-39 FIGURE 4371 DATA PLOT FOR MODEL WO. 19. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFFILIENT VS. DISCHHRGE Qo C+ 22$ 2 = roKmy , Dy = Pour, Sh, =/00 CAIGURES )NOCHE SUBMERBENCE RATIOS) Cworcares Pho = 0.52). 19 m- ie 2% za- SB- 43> 4m Ma 2a om 96 sy 5 i mt & Fy Hea 8 ,° ° 2 4 © a oo pteoe biscnarct Q, (ts).A-40 ElGURE ASB_* DATA PLor FoR Model NO. 12 WATER SURFACE jy. ELEVATION COBPRCIENMT US. DISCHARGE Qo . O22? Bs une, 2. =7obm, Why + 100 CFGURES NDICATE SUBMERBENCE RATIOSY 20 Cmpuares Sle, = 08). 2% 2.8 328~ a —+. 4B- Tena Sy! Fld L 30 9 nat g 560 6 2a a6 2 4 AB ‘594584 9 a ' WATER SURFACE ELEWATION COEFFICIENT” (ky % ° 2 4 6 8 ” Model DISCHARGE. Qo (Us)A-41 FIORE ASQ: DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT US. DISCHARGE Qo. 265°» Deere, Dirpint , yhoo " (Pavees Nene SBMERGENTE ues) Enoeares @7@,= 0.82). we Mi 2 a9 2n SH- 2p us 7 LB a «OB ie ro ° It PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE CoErmicENTS ‘k,% e MODEL DISCHARGE Q, (l/s).beren suence clare cosmmuenr ‘hy’ A-42 SURE Ago: DATA PLOT FoR MobEL NO. zo, HATER SURFACE ELEVATION COLFEICIENT US DISCHARGE Qu. en 5°, B= pens , Bspout , khy=t00. (ACRES INDICATE SUBMERBERE RATIOS 2 Croncaes GQ, -0.50) 196~ b6b~ ze Hl AS 4 4R- a= a ve wo ho | os | a a ° z 4 6 6 0 URSDEL DISCHARGE Qy (b/s)ke PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS A438 FIGURE ABT DATA FLOT FOR *ODEL NO. 2 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS US. DISCHARGE, Qo + We + 48°, Dy 70m , Box pots, VA, 2/0 20 (FIGURES INDICE SURMEGEE RATOS) C-norcewes Ge, = 0.50) hid - 441 is 2a afte Sp ho ie 120 2.06 180 337 sal k 208 She “s00 RG /Qg = 0.0 458 0 os ° ° 2 a e é oo (Meds DISCHARGE Qq (Yh).WATER SURFACE ELEVATION “COEFFICIENTS UP, DSTHARGE Qy - “ene © WATER SURFACE ELEUATION COEFFICIENTS FIGURE AZ 25 20 1s 10 os AGS DATA PLOT FoR MODEL W/O. 2/. e= 45°, Qs orm , dy= omy CA, aL ie 180 36 208 4s 1 4 CPIGURES INDICATE SUBMIERGENCE RATIOS (~moreares S§a,= 0.5%) aid a4: 590- #F on 4 € & © Move oiscmaece & (u/s)HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS ky ~ PRESSURE A-45 FIGURE Ad3_: DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO 22. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT US. DITHMROE Qs . 25 deo lo Os 8 = O°, By = Pim, B= DM, 4A, 00 (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMIERBINCE RATIOS) . 4 © mocares /Gs= 0.50). 22 2n- 4% 28 » 30 B3a00- 479 q 2] 3 4n- 10 437 pag $82 283 400 rm 46 4 Sill re OTe —:— 0S) ot °} 2 4 e é fo Move viscmarca (l/s).WATER SURRIcE ELEVATION ConreicuenT ‘ky, % A-46 FiStiez Ads DAMA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 22. ATER, SURFACE ELEVATION COEFRICIENT US. DISCHARBE Qa O- 2 & = pum, DB »Zar, Why = 100 (FIGURES: (INDICATE SUBMERBENCE RATIOS) . 2 4 Cmowses Seg - 0.0) ry ° 1 241 34izar Bel 3.0- 2 aie 3 al & ! pace ass 3a- 28 - 40 4 é a fo MODEL DISCHARGE Qo Ch).A-47 EIGURE AdS_: DATA PLOT FoR MobeL NO. 25 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qa - On azl?, Q» S011, Dy = Fount, WA, 2/803 (FIGURES INEWOATE SUBVERGESICE RATIOS.) Crocves 2YQ,+0.2) - 200 8 1A cae 5 3 1S - i= 3 +8 fe uw 3 ¥ ay w 8 Pay x 283 0 lo 4 1 4 422 196 306 4y 422 x y x a é y as | @ a ° TOTO oO ooo ° 2 4 6 8 vo MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (hh).WATER suRseCe ELEVATION castReunr Ky / A-48 LIGURE AGES DATA PL07 Fok MODEL WO. 23. WATER, SURFACE ELEVATIONS COEFFICIENT” YS DISCHARGE Qo. O22, Qy= Sten, OQ» pomty Why» (bos (CPIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE £47705) C worcaves 2,7 0.) z0 1 Wo sz 6 FB yor geus- 2 i 2 ge 18. oe fe az os ° ° 2 4 6 8 0 MODEL OCISCHARGE @ (Us).7 0 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEERICIENT- A-49 FIGURE Ad? DATA PLOT FOR Mods NO. 24. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT VS DISCHARBE Qa. B= 25°, Doz Being Qi= Jour, 4A * 1.803 « (FisURES WOICATE SUBITERGENCE 4705) 25 (rmorcaes W5z,= OS) 20 at 20 4 679 210 aa5 180 22 2 s5- 26 45 33. WS 4 oe Biss to os o 2 g ce a is move. Discusses Q, (Ls).‘ WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CoBmEVCIEN ‘ky’ A-50 ELGURE AGB! Bara PLOT FOR HODEL AD. BE MATER SUREACE ALEVATION COEFFICIENT 1S, DITHARGE Qe. ° 8+ 45°, A+ Sams, Bur Poot, hy= 1&8, CEIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGOKE RATIOS) 3000 C~ arcares @5/* 0.50) 2s 7 Bie aa - ad 210 235 20 | 180 ~ 22i- 235 no- BR 3B 506- 3x5 ws 42 he‘kee PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENTS A-SL FIGURE APD: OATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 2S. PRESSURE MEAD CHANGE COBFFIDENT US, DISCHARGE Q,. er 4s?, Oy: Sem, R* Poumy, “hus loo. (FIGCRES. INDICATE SUBMERBENCE ATTOS) - s & morcares 2,70.) 2 o6= “ 165 o8 0 Pd ° 2 4 6 e 2 Moree Discwarce ‘,’ (t/s)-X 4 warer suerace suevarion cosrccuenr ‘fy! A-52 HIGUAE ASo__! DATA PLOT FOR MODEL Wo. 25. WATER SURFACE ELBVATION COEFFICIGNT US DISCHARGE Qo + 20%, Dye Saunt Q2 im, WAy= 1-803. FURS ICAP SURMERENCE RATIOS). 3 C~norcares S42, = 2. 5) 16 Billo ral 146 165 393 ~~ TT rT ° z 4 e 4 0 mopee biscHarce Qo (l/s).As53 FIGURE AS|_: DATA PLOT OR Mors No. 26. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT US. DISCHARGE Qo. 2 GS, = tint, By Foun, WA, = 1.803. (FIGLRES (NEVCATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS) ~ 20 4 C -morcares 285/Q,= 0.50). ve > « a 4 Sa- ‘ 283- 1 j a0 g po x ‘ 48 ID 4 2 6 § 192 $e on os 160 ° 2 4 6 é “© Moser biscHarece & (Ys).+ ELEVATION COEFFICIENT WATER SURFACE AA54 FIGURE _AS2_* DATA FLoT FOR MobsL WO. 26 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFEICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qo - O=67f° 292 Stim, a= pin, YAy? 1.808. (PIGURES, WOICATE SUBVIERBENCE RATIOS). oo 4 CO Npeares GQ, 7 0.50) 20 2p is ae 7 2 4d 1” a 12 - 245 “2 i 28 30 to os ° ° 2 4 ¢ a fo Mone, DISHARGE @, CYS).HEAD CHANGE COEFACIENT PRESSURE A-55 FIGURE AS2 DATA PLOT FOR MODEL WO. 27 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COERECIENT VS DISCHARGE Qo. A: 22f? , Dos 27 Hg, Boum, AY, = 3-292 (CPREURES NNDICATE SUBMTERGENCE RATIOS)... 4 (morass 85/Q,* 0.50). 1.20- 2p- 155— Ls 2B- 303 1B 10 4 109 Lee o 2 a 6 a fo MODEL DISCHARGE Qq (l/s).WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFFICIENT yl A-56 eisvRe ASt_: Dara PLor D2 MODEL Ko. 27. HATER SURFACE, ELEVATION COEFFICIENT” VS. DISCHARGE Qo - = 2249 = = fae 8: 22f?, Ds razana , =Jort, Why 3.282 (FIGURES INDICATE SURMERGENCE RA70S). 25 C- wocazs 8&8 +0.) 20 As to Q 2 4 e 8 lo MODEL DISHARBE Ry Cle)PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE Coerscanr 'k,” A-57 FIGURE ASS - DATA PLOT FOR /1QDEL AO, ZO. PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE QEFFICIENT US DISCHARGE Qo - @7 45°, Bs 27a, De* Jorn 94,2 3.282. (BIBURES (OIOMTE: SUBMERBENCE RATIOS). > go (~ npicares 8G/Qq= 3.) 18 13 198 | Su ° 2 a Ce a fo Move, DISCHARGE @y (US).WwaTeR SURFACE ELEVATION CoereICIENT ‘by A-58 FIGURE ASE DA7A PLOT FOR s7opee NO. 28. WATER SUREACE ELEVATION COBFEICENT US DISSHARBE Qo « Orr”, Ba 1274s, Q J0 1st Hd, Ag, «3.282. BS w 6 8 yy 8 25 (PIBLRES INDICATE SUSHERSENCE 247705) 18 | C normes G/a,20.%) 18 Zot 4 36 25- 222- — i —1 o 2 ea 6 6 *° Move DIscHaRae Qo (ls).7 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COBFFICIEA~ A-59 FIGURE AS? = DATA PLor FOR MoDEL 4/0. 29 PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT VS. DISCHARGE Qo - 2 e245 ° °) 2 274m , De Foamt, hy» 2262. (PIGURES INDICATE SUBATERENCE RATIOS) ~ CO morcaes C2, = 0.52) 6 2y- 28 2M 187 2.02 & 2 4 6 a MepeL Distwmese & (Ys). TT OTTO foA-60 EIGURE ASB © OATA PLOT FOR MODEL K/O- 22. KATER SURPACE ELEVATION CAERPICIEN- US. DISCHARGE QRo + O- 48°, 2 a7, 2,7 70MM, Mha= 3.262. CSGURES INDICATE SUSMERGENCE RATIOS) 4 (- woesres Vile, = 0.52) 47 \ N 1 ° 4 2a 207 “2 + 34 " WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COEFRICIENT ee ee ee ° 2 4 Co a fo Mook, orscwarce Qe (U/s).¢ eS PRESSURE HEAD CHANGE COEFEYCIENT A-61 FIGURE ASQ - DATA PLOT FOR MODEL NO. 3a. PRESSURE EAD CHANGE COEFFICIENT US. DYSCHARGE Ro. Oe OL, Dy = 127K, Dy= Jonm, Why 8.282. (FIGURES INDICATE SUBMERGENCE RATIOS ) 4 Cmnmicars 85 /2o* OF). 195 38 OT o 2 4 e 8 fo Mover disexaace Ge (t/s)A-62 FIGURE AGO - DATA PLor OR MODEL No. $0 KUTER SURRACE ELEVATION COEFEIC/ENIT VS DISCHARGE Qo. O- 67f? , B= 27K, Dy= Pour “Why = 8.282. (FIGLIRES INDICATE SUBLIERGENCE RATIOS) 6 7 Co norcares 85/@_= 0-50.) 4 4 18 238 16157 z 4 a 313 3- 30- ° - ° 2 4 e 8 0 MODEL DISCHARGE Qo (Us).