Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
1
In this paper a comparison of flow patterns at the junction of two channels and at
the junction of a channel and pipe is done. The experimental study done by Nedelac and
Gay (2008) of a junction between a closed conduit and an open channel and an
experimental study by Weber et al. (2001) of a junction of two channels are reviewed
here.
2
(Source: Webber et al; 2001)
Fig.2 Flow Characteristics in Open-Channel Junction
In order to study the flow patterns at a junction between a pipe and an open
channel an experimental study published by Nedelac and Gay (2008) is reviewed. The
experimental set up used by them and the important results are discussed in the following
sections.
3
(Source: Nedelac et al; 2008)
Fig. 3. Experimental setup overview
The main part of the model was a rectangular glass flume, 6 m long, 0.3 m wide,
and 0.3 m in depth. Its downstream end was closed by a gate sliding vertically, acting as a
horizontally crested weir. The channel bed slope was adjustable and the bottom wall was
covered with rough PVC lining in order to increase the friction slope. One of the flume’s
sidewalls was equipped with a 0.2 m wide opening in its middle, so that a rectangular
plate with a circular hole could be inserted, and ensure wall continuation. This plate
connected a lateral circular pipe positioned at a right angle. The pipe connection to the
channel allowed small vertical angular deviations. It was designed so that the pipe slope
could be adjusted. The pipe length was 1.20 m and its interior diameter was 0.08 m. The
pipe invert was concordant with the channel bed. After the setup of the installation, the
4
channel slope was initially measured as 0.324%, and the pipe slope as 0.23%. They were
kept unchanged because of their being typical of values in actual subsurface drainage
systems.
Supply water came into the channel and pipe from a constant head tank through
circular PVC conduits. Both input flow rates could be independently controlled by
butterfly gate valves.
Both approach flows were improved using transition structures within stilling
zones, 0.8 m long for the channel, and 0.2 m long for the pipe. The channel’s input flow
fell from the pipe through a vertical perforated cylinder before being guided and stilled
by plastic grids. The pipe’s flow was introduced upstream using a T-junction and guided
by a deflecting grid followed by a bundle of 0.2 m long and 0.025 m diameter parallel
perforated tubes. The length left for flow development before the test section was
equivalent to 12 diameters for the pipe. It was at least 25 times the hydraulic radius of the
channel.
Both discharge flow rates were measured by electromagnetic flow meters with an
accuracy of ± 0.66L/s for the maximum input of 12 L/s. Flow depths were measured in
the channel by a point gauge and a spanning bridge. Flow depths in the pipe were
estimated from pressure values, when a free-surface could be observed. Twenty
capillaries connected to a single pressure transducer were used to measure the static
pressure at five cross sections. Each cross section comprised the four ends of one vertical
and one horizontal diameter.
5
0.48 m diameter pipe. These limits, combined with a downstream gate level ranging from
0 to a little more than one pipe diameter, allowed the observation of various flow patterns
and of the transitions between them. Two realistic combinations between upstream flow
rates were chosen:
(1) Sets of upstream flow linked by a given constant sum downstream
(2) Sets of upstream flow rates linked by a given constant ratio.
The first kind of combination simulated the influence on junction behavior of one
given downstream control structure or channel flow capacity. The sum of the two flow
rates together with one gate level became a single and invariable downstream constraint
condition.
The second kind simulated the junction’s typical behavior in case of concomitant floods
coming from similar catchments. In this case, at any time during one flood event, both
upstream flows (yet considered here as constant) were set proportional to a common
specific flow rate. The ratio between flow rates represented the ratio between watershed
areas. Because of a head loss due to the flow guides at the pipe’s inlet, an undesirable
pressurized flow could be introduced upstream. The installation of a small air vent
upstream of the conduit could change the depth-discharge curve beyond a given
nondimensional discharge. In order to check for possible air presence influence on flow
patterns, a tiny hole (0.005 m in diameter) was drilled through the pipe upstream wall 1 m
away from the junction point. Along with visual flow observations, quantitative data sets
for each test comprise results from variables listed in Table 1.
6
The open channel junction water level above the channel bottom was measured at two
cross-sections: two channel widths upstream (hu) and three channel widths downstream
(hd). A few complementary sets of water levels above the channel bottom were collected
on a regular grid of 5 cm between these two cross sections.
The flow at channel or pipe junctions could be separated into several regions and
show a strong dissymmetry. Alterations of the free-surface elevation and of the pipe wall
pressure could be linked to these flow regions and to the flow dissymmetry.
A typical example of channel free-surface shape is presented in Fig. 4, in the
form of elevation profiles. Non dimensional free surface elevation above the channel
bottom h/d (h=free surface elevation above channel bottom or pipe invert, d=pipe
diameter) is shown at locations regularly spaced along the channel axis, for a channel
flow rate Q of 0.006 m3 s−1 and a pipe flow rate q of 0.002 m3 s−1 . Two cases are shown,
corresponding to a downstream gate level above the channel bottom Hd of (a) 0.025 m (in
this case the pipe flows with a free surface along its hole length) and (b) 0.030 m (in this
case the pipe flows entirely pressurized).
Dotted lines are drawn to indicate the channel bed slope, so that they would
represent a theoretical horizontal surface. These profiles show the final decrease in free-
surface elevation between upstream and downstream, observed similarly in other kinds of
junctions. An additional elevation decrease was also apparent in front of the pipe outlet,
7
and could be linked to the separation zone and the contracted cross section previously
known in right-angled channel junctions. Fig. 4(b) shows that the flow may be entirely
pressurized in the pipe despite a free surface in the channel lower than the pipe soffit at
the outlet. In this particular case the pipe flow pattern is directly controlled by the channel
state and cannot be deducted from the pipe flow rate alone, or from an intuitive
hypothesis on free-surface continuity between upstream branches.
8
Pipe wall pressure longitudinal profiles showed flow dissymmetry, which
increased as water approached the pipe outlet. Fig. 4 shows an example of such profiles.
An inclined dotted line was drawn to locate the conduit top. The observed hydraulic
grade line tended to become almost horizontal toward the upstream end of the pipe, until
the initiation of flow development introduced a slight dissymmetry.
Three pressure measurement points on a cross section were not sufficient to
precisely convert pressure differences into forces deflecting the pipe flow toward the
channel axis, because the pressure distribution may have been somewhat more complex
than in a rectangular lateral channel or conduit (Ramamurthy and Zhu 1997). These
observations nevertheless gave an estimation of the upstream scope of the influence of
the channel entrance, set to a maximum length of two pipe diameters.
Figures 6 (a and d), and Fig. 7(a) show ordinary free-surface junctions. Fig. 6(a) is
listed separately because the problem depends on only two variables at its boundaries.
Figs. 6(b) and 7(b) show a pipe outlet entirely submerged, making the junction similar to
9
a deflected jet. Fig. 7(c) shows a free surface at the end of a pressurized pipe, similar to a
free fall at pipe outlet.
Fig.6. Channel flow patterns (the channel free surface is represented in dark gray,
the pipe free surface is represented when necessary in light gray). (a)No upstream
channel flow (b) drowned flow, similar to a jet deflection; (c) weir effect; (d) free-
surface; and (e) partial lateral circular weir.
Two additional channel flow patterns are considered here as interesting, because
their characteristics are specifically related to the present system. The flow pattern
defined as “weir effect” [Fig. 6(c)] refers to pressurized flow in pipe, which leads channel
water to flow above pipe water but fall lower than the level of the pipe crown,
reproducing the fall of water above a physical weir. The flow pattern defined as “partial
lateral circular weir” [Fig. 6(e)] refers to a strongly curved free surface, which falls from
one half of the pipe edge as if it fell from a circular weir. In this particular case, the free-
surface locally faces downward [location is shown by an arrow in Fig. 6(e)].
The last two pipe flow patterns [Figs. 7(d and e)] are introduced because of a
possibly inclined pipe, in which the hydraulic grade line may be less inclined than the
pipe, or parallel to it in the last case.
10
This last case is generally a transitional and quite unstable state, though the air
pockets may remain trapped at stationary locations. The cavities in Figs. 7(d and e) may
Fig.7. Pipe flow patterns (the pipe free surface is represented when necessary in
dark gray, the channel free surface is represented in light gray). (a) Free-surface (b)
pressurized (c)downstream cavity flow (d) upstream cavity flow and (e) transitional.
result from trapped air after an increase in water level in the channel, or equilibrium with
atmospheric pressure through the upstream air vent in the pipe. In test conditions trapped
air slowly bubbles downstream until a stationary state is reached.
11
Fig.8 compares the non dimensional free-surface level above the channel bottom
between the upstream and downstream sections, for a given total flow rate for each data
series. The remaining free variable is the downstream gate level above the channel
bottom. The Froude number here ranged from 0.12 to 0.75. The lowest downstream water
levels were limited because a critical section was formed when the downstream gate level
decreased sufficiently.
The water level difference tended to align to that of a nearly horizontal free
surface at high gate levels. The difference increased as the gate was lowered, and at an
increased rate as the pipe’s flow rate was higher. Thus the influence of a conduit outlet
may not be negligible in case of a high discharge into a channel with a high discharge
12
capacity. Conversely, a channel management policy of keeping water at high levels will
reduce the pipe discharge influence on upstream channel levels compared to an
improvement of channel discharge capacity.
3.3.3 INFLUENCE OF JUNCTION ON ENERGY LOSS
The energy loss resulting from the junction of two flows of the same kind was
thoroughly studied and modeled and considering that the portions of the channel free
surface in both the upstream and downstream directions were nearly horizontal (as in Fig.
4), we may define the energy loss coefficient Ke as
= Ke ----------------------------- (1)
where A and α = correction coefficients for energy, considered from hereon as equal to 1;
Z= vertical free-surface or piezometric level;
Zu in the channel and in the pipe are supposed to be nearly equal, for open channels;
θ= angular variable representative of free-surface elevation above the pipe invert,
defined as the angle between a radius extending from the pipe’s bottom to the central
axis, and a radius extending from the central axis to the point of contact between the free
surface and pipe:
13
------- (3)
Neglecting the friction energy loss in Eq (3), the combination of Eqs. (1) and (3) yields
Fig.9 Comparison of energy loss coefficients Ke, computed from experimental data
versus those computed from Serre. formulas. (x) Computation with observed
upstream and downstream water levels. (Δ) Computation considering only
downstream (Zu=Zd) water level. The dashed line is the line of perfect agreement
The values of Ke calculated from experimental data and those computed from
Serre et al. formulas are shown in fig 9.
14
Considering that friction energy loss was neglected in the application of Eq. (3),
the comparison shows a rather good correspondence between a model developed for
circular conduit junction and the system studied here.
The experiments were performed in a 900 combining flow flume Head tanks on
both the main and branch channels supplied the discharge. To ensure properly developed
flow entering into the junction branches, perforated plates and 100 mm thick honeycomb
were placed at the main and branch channel inlets. Volumetric measurements were made
with manometer readings. The tailwater depth in the downstream channel was controlled
by an adjustable tailgate.
The coordinate system defined for this testing had the positive x-axis oriented in
the upstream direction of the main channel. The positive y-direction points to the main
channel wall opposite of the channel junction. Thus the positive z-axis is upward in the
vertical direction. The origin from which all points are measured was the bed at the
upstream corner of the channel junction. All distances were normalized by the channel
width. All test sections in this study were denoted by the distance in channel widths
measured positive in the x-direction for upstream main channel measurements, negative
in the x-direction for combined tailwater flow measurements, or negative in the y-
direction for measurements in the branch channel.
15
The longitudinal velocity u* is the dimensionless velocity in the x-axis direction.
Plate 1 displays u*-velocity contours near the water surface for q* = 0.250 {q* or flow
ratio is defined as the ratio of the upstream main channel flow (Qm) to the total flow (Qt)}.
The separation zone can be seen as the area of low velocity along the junction adjacent
wall immediately downstream of the channel junction. Recirculation inside the separation
zone is shown as the region of positive velocity, indicating upstream motion. The largest
velocities occur just downstream of the junction, in the main channel flow region
contracted by the zone of separation.
All longitudinal velocity contours near the bed are distinctly different from the
near surface velocity patterns. The separation zone is larger near the surface (both in
length and width) its size varies from top to bottom because of the angle of entrance of
the branch channel flow. There is also more recirculation inside the separation zone near
the surface. In the constricted reach immediately downstream of the junction, higher
velocities occur near the bed. This effect is also attributed to the entrance angle of the
lateral flow. Once the contracted region is passed, velocities readjust to the typical open-
channel condition of higher velocities near the surface.
.
16
(Source: Weber et al; 2001)
Fig.10. Schematic of Flow Structure
As more discharge enters from the main channel the separation zone decreases in
width and length. This can be justified by considering the limiting condition of all flow
entering the junction from the main channel which would likely exhibit no separation at
the downstream corner of the junction. Lower velocities in the junction region result from
the reduced contraction of the main channel flow due to a smaller zone of separation
17
Fig.11 Plate1. Surface Velocity Pattern
18
Fig. 12 Plate2. Cross-Sectional Velocity Pattern.
Plate 2(a) displays a cross-sectional view of the u*-velocity downstream of the
junction for q* = 0.250. The separation zone is clearly depicted along the junction
adjacent wall, y*= 0.00. It is apparent that the constricted flow has been deflected to the
outer half of the main channel.
Plate 2(b) contrasts the flow downstream of the channel junction with q* = 0.750.
The separation zone, at the same cross section, immediately downstream of the channel
junction, extends much further into the main channel for q* = 0.250 [Plate 2(a)] than for
q* = 0.750 [Plate 2(b)].
This is caused by the decreased momentum of lateral channel flow as q*
increases. The higher momentum for the low q* condition allows the branch channel flow
to extend further into the main channel before being deflected downstream, therefore
causing a wider zone of separation.
Water surface mappings allow visualization of the dynamics of the water surface
through the channel junction region. A depth decrease from the flow upstream of the
junction to the tailwater flow is generally observed.
19
Fig.14 Flow Pattern Graph at Junction of Two Channels (Along Wall Side)
For all flow conditions the water surface generally displays a drawdown
longitudinal profile, Fig.14, as the flow enters the contracted region and then exhibits a
depth increase as the flow expands to the entire channel width downstream of the
separation zone. This pattern is more distinctive for lower q* flow conditions where the
water surface depression within the separation, adjacent and downstream of the lateral
branch, is deeper and more extensive.
The experiment indicates that the maximum difference in the average upstream
depths is very small and decreases with increasing q*. The main channel upstream cross-
section profile is horizontal; however, the branch channel depth decreases as x*
approaches 1.00. For low q* flow conditions this decrease is substantial but for high q*
the cross-section profiles show smaller cross-channel variations. This trough exhibited at
low q* is attributed to the drawdown feature evident in the junction flow. From fig 11, it
can be seen that the flow has not completely recovered from junction effect until beyond
x*=-6.00. This complicates the design of successive junctions. Figure 13 indicates that as
20
main channel flow reaches the junction more decrease in surface elevation is caused and
only after reasonable flow, does the main channel regains its original characteristics.
While in the case of a junction between a channel and pipe, the decrease in surface
elevation is less compared to former. The effect of flow patterns in pipe vary from free-
surface flow to pressurized pipe flow depending on the discharge and carrying capacity of
pipe.
21
6. CONCLUSIONS
The results raised the following important effects resulting from particular
combinations of experimental variables or geometrical parameters:
(1) The conduit outlet may cause non-negligible tail water effects upstream in case of
high pipe flow combined with high channel discharge capacity.
(2) The channel tail water effect upstream due to pipe outlet flow may increase with
flow rates in both the pipe and channel, which could occur through the simultaneous flow
from both the upstream catchments of the channel and pipe.
(3) The influence of combined pipe slope and downstream tail water effects may
cause a change in pipe flow from free surface to pressurized. The present observations
extend available knowledge on free-pipe outlet flow. This influence may lead to two
forms of transitional cavity flow, with possible different behaviors in transient conditions.
(4) The velocity dip in open channel flow is responsible for the following:
4.1 A reduction in main channel longitudinal velocities as flow passes through the
junction.
4.3 Lower through flow and recirculating velocities in the branch channel.
(5) The surface elevation of main channel flow decreases more in the case of junction
of two channels rather than a junction between a channel and closed conduit. This
theory should be considered in the construction of drainage ditch or underground
drainage systems.
22
REFERENCES
23