ENERGY LOSS IN CIRCULAR DROP MANHOLES

F. Granata 1, G. de Marinis 2, R. Gargano 3, W. H. Hager4

1

Ph.D., Research Fellow, University of Cassino, Dipartimento di Meccanica

Strutture Ambiente e Territorio, Via G. Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino (FR) Italy.
PH: +39 0776 2994338, FAX: +39 0776 2993939, e-mail: f.granata@unicas.it
2
Ph.D., Full Professor, University of Cassino, Dipartimento di Meccanica Strutture
Ambiente e Territorio; Via G. Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino (FR) Italy.
PH: +39 0776 2993614, FAX: +39 0776 2993939, e-mail: demarinis@unicas.it
3
Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Cassino, Dipartimento di Meccanica
Strutture Ambiente e Territorio; Via G. Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino (FR) Italy.
PH: +39 0776 2993661, FAX: +39 0776 2993939, e-mail: gargano@unicas.it
4
Ph.D., Professor, ETH Zurich, Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and
Glaciology (VAW), CH-8092 Zurich Switzerland.
PH: +41 44 632 4149; FAX: +41 44 632 1192; e-mail: hager@vaw.baug.ethz.ch
ABSTRACT
Drop manholes are often used as energy dissipators in sewer systems. A
supercritical approach flow to a drop manhole has considerable hydraulic energy
causing excessive air entrainment, tailwater waves, pipe abrasion and structural
damage. Drop manholes may undergo various flow types. An experimental research
has been conducted at the Laboratorio di Ingegneria delle Acque, University of
Cassino, Italy on two circular manhole models of different sizes. It was observed that
the energy dissipation of a drop manhole is mainly affected by operational
conditions, i.e. the flow regime, depending on the manhole geometry and the
approach flow features. The energy loss is also affected by the manhole diameter and
by the drop height. It may become smaller than expected under certain
circumstances, resulting in a high tailwater velocity. This undesirable condition must
be avoided because drop manholes should significantly reduce peak velocities. The
maximum velocity can be predicted by an empirical equation proposed herein.
Keywords: Drop manhole, Energy dissipation, Hydraulics, Open channel flow,
Sewer
INTRODUCTION
Drop manholes are a typical element of urban drainage systems. In a sewer
system, high flow velocity can enhance stormwater sediment abrasion and sewer
pipes may undergo structural damage. Moreover, high velocity flow can lead to poor
hydraulic conditions in junction or bend manholes (e.g. Schwalt and Hager 1995,
Gisonni et al. 2000). To reduce peak flow velocity, the sewer slope must be
decreased by suitable drop structures using adequate drop manholes. These should
operate such that the up- and downstream energy heads are roughly equal.

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

c 2009 by International Association of Hydraulic Engineering & Research (IAHR)
Copyright
ISBN: 978-94-90365-01-1

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

Accordingly, a drop manhole should provide a total energy loss equal to the drop
height.
The head loss is related to dissipative phenomena involving increase of flow
turbulence, jet spreading and jet impact onto the manhole bottom. As the height of
drop manholes is limited to typically 10 m, transformation into spray is small. The
energy dissipation is therefore essentially due to impact losses at the manhole walls
and bottom, associated with turbulence production. Moreover, if the incoming jet
impacts against the opposite manhole wall, the energy dissipation is also promoted
by jet spreading. Further dissipative effects are related to the outflow from manhole.
If the free falling nappe hits the downstream sewer invert, the most part of the
incoming discharge flows directly into the downstream pipe and the crossing flow is
affected by fewer dissipative effects. This cases can lead to unsatisfactory manhole
operation with consequent unexpected features of the downstream flow.
Energy dissipation across drop manholes was considered by few authors.
Christodoulou (1991) proposed an empirical equation for the head loss coefficient as
a function of a drop parameter, for circular drop manholes. Rajaratnam et al. (1997)
observed that flow processes in circular dropshafts could produce significant energy
loss, which should be considered in the design of sewer systems. Chanson (2004)
pointed out that energy dissipations of rectangular dropshafts depend on the basic
flow patterns (i.e. the flow regimes).
An experimental approach was conducted at the Laboratorio di Ingegneria
delle Acque, University of Cassino, Italy, to investigate the flow features in drop
manholes. A particular interest was to define the various flow regimes, and to
measure the gross energy loss across this hydraulic structure. The relative energy loss
was defined using the energy heads at the approach and the downstream pipes.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experimental facility consisted of a plexiglass circular manhole model
connected to a recirculation system (Fig. 1) (de Marinis et al. 2007). The tests were
performed on two different manhole models: (1) Model 1 has an internal manhole
(subscript M) diameter of DM = 1 m, and was tested with drop heights of s = 1.0, 1.5,
2.0 m. The water discharge Q varied from 3 l/s to 80 l/s; (2) Model 2 with DM = 0.48
m and s = 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 m, with 1.5 l/s Q 60 l/s, measured with an electromagnetic
discharge meter to 0.1 l/s. A jet-box controlled the approach flow Froude number
(Gargano and Hager 2002). Both the inlet (subscript in) and the outlet (subscript out)
plexiglass pipes had a diameter of Din = Dout = 200 mm, while the manhole bottom
shape was plane.
All manhole tests discussed below were conducted under atmospheric
pressure conditions, i.e. the manhole was not sealed. Flow depths were measured
with piezometers and point gauges with reading accuracies of 0.5 mm. The
approach (subscript o) flow depth ho was recorded downstream of the jet-box, where
the flow has a horizontal surface and the pressure distribution is hydrostatic. The
downstream (subscript d) flow depth hd was measured 3.40 m from the manhole
outlet, where the flow is gradually varied and the air entrained by the drop manhole
has almost detrained resulting essentially in clear water flow with a hydrostatic

2312

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

pressure distribution. The manhole therefore generates rapidly varied flow conditions
which are too complex to be addressed by an analytical approach.

a)

b)

Figure 1. Experimental facility a) lateral view of Model 1, b) Detailed view of

Model 2.
DM
Eo

ho

Din

Circular manhole

Upstream
pipe

Ho

s
Downstream pipe

Hd=Ed
Dout

hp

hd

Figure 2. Definition sketch.

FLOW REGIMES
The energy dissipation of a drop manhole depends on the manhole operating
condition. Chanson (2004) classified these for rectangular drop manholes taking into
account exclusively the jet impact location. de Marinis et al. (2007) in turn
considered for circular drop manholes the flow regime in addition and extended the
previous classification to:
 Regime R1 occurs if the jet plunges into the shaft pool,

2313

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

Regime R2a prevails if the jet impacts the zone between the manhole bottom
and the manhole outlet,
 Regime R2b occurs if the jet impacts the downstream sewer invert
 Regime R2c results from a jet partially impacting the manhole sidewall
immediately above the manhole outlet,
 Regime R3a can be observed if the jet impacts above the outlet, and
 Regime R3b establishes for higher Froude numbers, if the jet impacts against
the opposite manhole sidewall, breaks and spreads.
These flow regimes may be characterized with the impact number I


0.5

2s
Vo
I=

g DM

(1)

where g is gravitational acceleration and Vo is average approach flow velocity. The

impact number accounts for both the approach flow features expressed with the
velocity head Vo2/(2g), and the manhole geometry related to the dimensionless drop
height S = s/DM. It can also be expressed as an impact Froude number FI =
Vo/(gDM2/2s)1/2. Impact features arise from likening the free falling jet to a material
point with velocity Vo. The trajectory equation of a material point is with x =
streamwise coordinate, y = vertical coordinate, yo = takeoff elevation, = takeoff
angle
y ( x) = y0 + tg x

g
x2
2V cos 2

(2)

2
0

For yo = s and = 0, the impact parameter I results after division of eq. (2) by DM.
This parameter characterizes the regimes for supercritical approach flow, i.e. if the
Froude number is Fo >1.
Therefore, the Impact number represents the ratio between jet range and manhole
diameter. If is I < 1 the jet impacts on the bottom, whereas it impacts against the
opposite wall if is I > 1.
Tests indicate that transitions between the regimes depend essentially on the
impact number (Table 1). Obviously, a transition between two regimes is not a
sudden process, but a gradual one.
Table 1. Impact number values for regime transitions.
Regime Transition
Impact number I
R1-R2

0.6

R2-R3a

0.951

R3a-R3b

1.5

2314

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

ENERGY DISSIPATION
Figure 2 shows a definition sketch involving the energy heads H = s + h +
V2/2g and E = h + V2/2g relative to the tailwater and approach flow elevations,
respectively. Figure 3 (a) shows typical results for the relative energy loss

Ho Hd
Ho

= 1

that is

Ed
Eo + s

(3)

Regime R1 is characterized by the largest energy loss resulting from approach

flow Froude numbers, Fo = Q/(gDinho4)1/2 close to 1, i.e. the energy head is small as
compared to the drop height, or Ed<< s and is close to 0.9.

(a)

(b)
Figure 3. Relative energy loss (I) for jet-box opening 50% and (a) DM = 1 m
and () s = 2.0 m, () s = 1.5 m, () s = 1.0 m (b) () DM = 1 m and () DM = 0.48
m, drop height s = 1.0 m.

2315

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

In regime R2 the relative energy loss decreases noticeably passing through a

minimum at the transition from regimes R2 to R3. In regime R2b the falling jet hits
the downstream pipe generating on the one hand a zone of large velocity gradients
but only a small extension of energy dissipating eddies on the other hand. As the jet
impacts the manhole sidewall additional energy is dissipated.
In regime R3a the energy loss increases with the impact number. The jet
impacts the opposite manhole wall resulting in jet deflection, associated with an
increased zone of large velocity gradients following impact onto the pool. Regime
R3b in turn is characterized by a large energy loss due to dissipation related to jet
spreading and subsequent plunging into the pool. As the impact number I increases,
appears to decrease, therefore. Figure 3 (a) shows that generally decreases as the
drop height s decreases. For small drop height, the impact jet velocity is small, and
the zone of large velocity gradients is confined.
Figure 3 (b) relates to the effect of diameter reduction. The relative energy
dissipation decrease in regime R2 is less significant as the manhole diameter reduces.
In addition, for DM = 0.48 m, the relative energy loss in regime R3 is constantly
decreasing with I.
DOWNSTREAM ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
The filling ratio of the approach flow pipe defined as yo = ho/Din is directly
related to the opening of the jet-box. It is an important parameter. The small relative
energy dissipation for the manhole with DM = 1 m under regime R2 (Fig. 3a), and for
DM = 0.48 m under regime R3 for large approach flow filling ratio (Fig. 3b) indicates
that the approach flow energy head Ho related to the drop height is only partly lost.
The non-dissipated portion is converted into kinetic energy in the downstream pipe.
Therefore, the total energy head of the downstream pipe can be significantly larger
than in approach flow pipe (Fig. 4a). Figure 4 (b) shows that the total downstream
energy head Ed is also affected by the approach flow depth, given that Ed increases
with yo.

a)
b)
Figure 4. Relation between relative total downstream and upstream heads Ed/s
and Eo/s for s = 1.5 m, a) DM = 1 m ( ) and DM = 0.48 m (), b) DM = 480 mm, jet
box plate 40% () and jet-box plate 80% ()

2316

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

Figure 5 shows the maximum (subscript max) downstream energy head Ed/s
observed in the present tests. The upper limit is given by
Ed
E
= 0.05 + 1.5 o
s
s

(4)

in the range 0<Eo/s<0.6. Equation (4) provides an estimate of the maximum

downstream head characterizing the maximum working conditions for the
downstream sewer. Equations (3) and (4) lead to:

= 1

0.05 + 1.5 Eo s
Ed s
= 1
1 + Eo s
Eo s + 1

(5)

Equation (5) points out that corresponding to maximum downstream heads

decreases as Eo/s increases.

Figure 5. Maximum observed downstream energy head Edmax/s versus Eo/s for
various drop heights and manhole diameters, (---) Eq. (4), () Edmax/s = Eo/s.

CONCLUSIONS
Drop manholes should operate such that the total upstream and downstream
energy heads are similar, i.e. the total energy loss is roughly equal to the drop height.
An experimental research was conducted involving two hydraulic models of different
2317

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

size to identify the effects of manhole geometry and approach flow hydraulics on the
energy loss.
It was found that the energy dissipation depends essentially on the manhole
operating conditions, i.e. the flow regime characterized by the impact number.
Further, the effects of drop height and of manhole diameter are also important,
indicating that the relative energy loss decreases with the drop height. In addition, the
relative energy dissipation generally tends to be larger as the manhole diameter
reduces. The maximum downstream energy head is specified with an empirical
equation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Eng. Tiziana Calcagni for her precious
collaboration in performing experimental tests. Moreover, they are grateful to Musilli
S.p.a. for supporting experimental activity.
REFERENCES
Chanson, H. (2004). Hydraulics of rectangular dropshafts. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering 130(6), 523-529.
Christodoulou, G.C. (1991), Drop manholes in supercritical pipelines. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 117(1), 37-47.
de Marinis, G., Gargano, R., Granata, F., Hager, W.H. (2007). Circular drop
manholes: Preliminary experimental results. 32nd Congress of IAHR, Venice [CDRom].
Gargano, R., Hager, W.H. (2002), Supercritical flow across sewer manholes. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 128 (11), 1014-1017.
Granata, F. (2007), Hydraulics of circular drop manholes. Ph.D. Thesis. Universit
degli Studi di Cassino, Cassino, Italy.
Del Giudice, G., Gisonni, C., Hager, W.H. (2000). Supercritical flow in bend
manhole. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 126(1), 48-56.
Rajaratnam, N., Mainali, A., Hsung, C.Y. (1997). Observations on flow in vertical
dropshafts in urban drainage systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering
123(5), 486-491.
Schwalt, M., Hager, W.H. (1995). Experiments to supercritical junction flow.
Experiments in Fluids 18, 429-437.

2318