DUET Journal

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

Efficiency of an Expansive Transition in an Open Channel Subcritical Flow

B. C. Basak and M. Alauddin
Department of Civil Engineering Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur, Bangladesh E-mail: mauddin_duet@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT Open channel transitions involving an expansion of width are a common feature of canals and flumes. Subcritical flow through an expansion transition can result in significant head loss due to separation of flow and subsequent eddy formation. The body of the hydraulic structure is subjected to lateral vibrations due to intermittent shedding of eddies, which are dangerous and hence, undesirable. Moreover, uneven distribution of velocity may cause asymmetry of flow and thus develop scour at places of highly concentrated velocities. This paper presents the results of experimental investigations on subcritical flow through gradual expansion in rectangular rigid-bed channels. The velocity distributions of flow through the transition models are made, thus, the efficiencies of the transitions evolved by different investigators are evaluated. 1. INTRODUCTION Open channel expansions for subcritical flow are encountered in the design of hydraulic structures such as aqueducts, siphons, barrages, and so on. In these structures the flow tends to separate while subjected to the positive pressure gradient associated with flow deceleration, thus resulting in a considerable loss of energy. In an expanding flow, the distribution of velocity in the cross section can be extremely uneven, and uneven distribution of velocity may cause asymmetry of flow and thus develop scour at places of highly concentrated velocities. This study involves the performance-evaluation of transitions evolved by different investigators in an open channel subcritical flow. To evaluate the transition profiles, efficiencies of the transition models are determined in a laboratory setup flow, defining this as the ratio of gain of potential energy to loss of kinetic energy. 2. AVAILABLE METHODS Because of the importance of knowledge concerning expansions in rigid-bed channels, several investigators studied with different aspects of flow in expansion. The methods available for the design of expansion transitions were contributed by Hinds [1], Hartley et al [2], Chaturvedi [3], Nashta and Garde [4], and Swamee and Basak [5]. A brief outline of each method is given as follows (Referred to Fig. 1). Hinds [1] assumed the water-surface profile in the transition to be composed of two reverse parabolas of equal length connected at the centre of the transition, and found the bed-width profile corresponding to the assumed waterF low b0 bx bL

x L PLAN

y0

yx

yL

S 00

E L E V A T IO N

Fig. 1: Definition sketch: Rectangular expansion transition surface profile. For this purpose Eq. (1) is taken as a form loss equation. The loss due to surface resistance is neglected, as it is small. The form loss, hL, is assumed to vary uniformly along the transition length and is expressed as:

V02 VL2 hL = K H 2g

(1)

where, V0 and VL = the velocity at the inlet and outlet of expansion respectively, KH = the loss coefficient lying between 0.3 and 0.75 [6], and g = the acceleration due to gravity. The equations of the two reverse parabolas representing the water depth y at a distance x from the inlet are given by (2a) y = y 0 + 2 ( y L y 0 ) 2 ; 0 0 .5 and

y = y L 2( y L y 0 )(1 ) 2 ; 0.5 1
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur

(2b)

27

DUET Journal in which y0 and yL = the depth of flow at inlet and outlet of

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

x channels respectively; and = . L

Equating total energies at the inlet and at a section 0 0.5 , and using Eq. (1) and (2a), the bed width profile is obtained as Q2( 1 K ) Q 1 KH H + 2 g S 0 L b= 2 2 y0 + 2( y L y0 ) 2 b y 0 0

4 g ( y L y 0 ) 2 4 g ( y L y 0 ) 2

0.5

(3a)

in which Q = the discharge, and S0 = the channel-bed slope. Similarly, applying energy equation at the outlet and at a section 0.5 1 and using Eq. (1) and (2b), the corresponding bed-width profile is

b=

Q 2 (1 K ) H 2 2 2 y L 2( y L y 0 )(1 ) bL y L Q 1 KH

2 g S 00 L(1 ) + 4 g ( y L y0 )(1 ) 2

0.5

(3b)

width 9.525 cm and length 2.50 m was constructed and placed at upstream portion of the flume, the walls of which were of varnished wood. Then the gradual expansion of length 55.56 cm was provided in the reach to have the normal channel width 25.4 cm and then continued for remaining 1.50 m length. The transition models were made of wooden bed and the side walls of Perspex sheet. The length of transition governed by side splay of 7:1 has been used in the present study, which is claimed to be the optimal value [7], and all the experiments were conducted in a rectangular channel with an expansion ratio of 2.67. A tail gate was provided at the downstream end of the flume for depth regulation. Water was circulated through the channel by one electrically driven centrifugal pump with constant speed closed impellers. The rails were provided along the entire working length of the flume, which supports a moving carriage, and a continuous scale calibrated in millimeters is provided along the length of one of the rails. The carriage with pointer gauge and Pitot tube is used for depth of flow and velocity measurements respectively (Fig. 2).

Hartley et al [2] assumed the following linear variation of the velocity: (4) V = V0 + (VL V0 ) in which V = the velocity of flow at a distance x and further assumed constant depth throughout the transition, b0V0 = bLVL = bV (5) Combining Eqs. (4) and (5), the bed-width profile was obtained as:
1 b = b01 + bL b01

)]

(6)

Chaturvedi [3] generalized Eq. (6) in designing the rectangular expansion transition in the following manner:
n b = b0n + bL b0n

)]

(7)

Fig. 2: Water surface profile and setup for velocity measurements To know the velocity distribution of flow through gradual expansion and hence to evaluate the efficiency of transition, the (i) velocity at various points, and (ii) depth of flow at various sections were to be known. Pitot tube with its setup was to be held at various points to know the velocities for those points. The velocity was evaluated from the differential head (known as velocity head, ( V / 2 g ) in the Pitot tube over the water surface in the channel. Water level along the centre line of the channel was measured with a pointer gauge. Velocities were measured at near surface, 0.20y, 0.40y, 0.60y, 0.80y and near bottom in the vertical. These measurements were made at a number of sections across the width at 1/6, , and 5/6 times the width, (Fig. 3) and along the length of transition at inlet, mid-length, and outlet sections. Each transition was tested for five different discharges, Q as 0.0015, 0.0030, 0.0045, 0.0060, and 0.0075 cumec. For each discharge, experiments were conducted at five different depths so that Froude number F1, at entry were 0.25, 0.32, 0.40, 0.47, and 0.55 respectively. A typical table (Table 1) is given below which reveals the data organizing.
2

where from experimental investigation the best value of n was claimed to be 1.5. Nashta and Garde [4], based on minimization of the form loss and friction loss recommended the following equation for the transition: (8) b = b0 + (bL b0 ) [1 (1 ) 0.55 ] Based on optimal control theory, a methodology has been presented for optimal design of a rectangular subcritical expansive transition by Swamee and Basak [5]. Analyzing a large number of optimal profiles, an equation for the design of rectangular transitions was presented as
1.35 L b = b0 + (bL b0 )2.52 1 + 1 x 0.775

(9)

However, no experimental evidence is available for the latest development. 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE The experiments were carried out in a flume of Water Resources Engineering Laboratory, DUET, Gazipur, which consisted of steel frame and bed, side walls of Perspex sheet. To test the transition models a contracted reach of
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur

28

DUET Journal

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

Inlet tank Perspex sheet sidewall Transition model Control weir

9.525 cm

25.4 cm 1 55.56 cm a) Top view of flume b/6 b/2 5b/6 Near surface 0.2 y 2 150 cm

Outflow

Inlet transition 65 cm 35 cm 250 cm

Wooden channel

Flow depth, y

0.4 y 0.6 y 0.8 y Near bottom Bed width, b

b) Cross-section at inlet of transition model with various points of measurements

Fig. 3: Top view of flume with the section showing the various points of velocity measurements Table 1: Local velocity (Model IV, Q = 0.0045 cumec)
Q m3/s F 1 0.25 0.32 0.0045 0.4 0.47 0.55 y 1 at inlet mm 153.0 129.0 110.0 101.0 89.0 y 1, mm 30.6 25.8 22.0 20.2 17.8 y 2 at outlet mm 155.3 131.5 114.2 105.4 94.8 y 2, mm 31.1 26.3 22.8 21.1 19.0 y 5 at y 4 at y 3 at 3L /4 L /4 mm L /2 mm mm 153.8 154.3 154.8 130.0 130.8 131.4 111.3 112.3 113.2 102.8 104.3 105.0 91.0 92.8 94.0

kinetic energy per unit time passing over the entire section 1-1, is obtained by integrating the term

1 3 v dA , i.e., 2

1 v 3 dA , where A1 indicates integration over the cross2 A1

section 1-1. In a similar manner, the kinetic energy per unit time for section 2-2, at the outlet of transition is

V. at mid-length At b /6 At b /2 At 5b /6 At Velocity, Velocity, Velocity, Reading, h Depth Reading, Reading, Reading, Avg. Vel, v in v in v in at 0.6y 4, v in m/sec s h in mm m/sec h in mm m/sec h in mm m/sec mm 0.1 y 10.0 0.443 10.5 0.454 10.0 0.443 0.2 y 10.5 0.454 11.0 0.465 10.5 0.454 0.4 y 10.0 0.443 10.5 0.454 10.0 0.443 Inlet 0.6 y 9.0 0.420 9.5 0.432 9.0 0.420 3.0 0.243 0.8 y 8.0 0.396 8.5 0.408 7.5 0.384 5.5 0.328 0.9 y 6.0 0.343 7.0 0.371 6.0 0.343 5.5 0.328 0.4 0.1 y 5.0 0.313 6.0 0.343 2.5 0.221 4.5 0.297 0.2 y 6.5 0.357 7.5 0.384 3.0 0.243 2.5 0.221 0.4 y 6.0 0.343 6.5 0.357 2.5 0.221 at b /3, and 2b /3 at I/O Outlet 0.6 y 3.0 0.243 4.0 0.280 1.5 0.172 4.5 0.297 0.8 y 1.0 0.140 2.0 0.198 1.0 0.140 4.0 0.280 0.9 y 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 Section

Froude No., F 1

1 v 3 dA . As the fluid passes through the transition, the 2 A2

actual reduction in kinetic energy per unit time, or the power available for transformation in the transition, is the difference of the above two, i.e.,

1 1 v 3 dA v 3 dA . A 1 2 2 A2

All of this energy is not transformed into useful work. It may be helpful to imagine the transition as a pump. The pump raises the pressure of the fluid entering. The term

1 1 v 3 dA v 3 dA might be regarded as the power A 1 2 2 A2

supplied or input to the pump. The head gained by the fluid flowing through the transition is y 2 y1 , where y1 and

4. BACKGROUND OF EFFICIENCY For finding the efficiency, it is necessary to consider the velocity variation across the channel. Referring to section 1-1 at the inlet, Fig. 3, let v be the velocity of flow through an infinitesimal area dA. Assuming that the flow is essentially in the direction of the axis of the transition, the volume of fluid per unit time passing through the elementary area is vdA, and then the mass rate of flow through this area is vdA. The kinetic energy of this fluid

y2 refer to the depths of flow at sections 1-1 and 2-2 respectively. If Q be the rate of flow per sec, potential energy gained by the fluid per sec will be Qg ( y 2 y1 ) which gives the actual power, the pump adds to the fluid. The purpose of transition is to convert kinetic energy into useful pressure energy. Hence, the efficiency of the transition is defined by

1 1 3 2 mass per unit time is (vdA)v , or v dA . The total 2 2

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur

Qg ( y 2 y1 ) 1 1 v 3 dA v 3 dA A 1 2 2 A2

(10)

29

DUET Journal Suppose, V1 be the average velocity at section 1-1 and V2 be the average velocity at section 2-2. Then one can write 1 1 (11) v 3 dA = QV12 1 A 1 2 2 and 1 1 (12) v 3 dA = QV12 2 A 2 2 2 where, 1 and 2 are numerical constants, known as energy coefficients for non-uniformity of velocity distribution. Now Eq. (10) takes the form ( y 2 y1 ) Qg ( y 2 y1 ) (13) = = 1 1 V12 V 22 2 2 QV1 1 QV2 2 1 2g 2 2g 2 2 The energy coefficients, 1 and numerically from Eqs. (11) and (12). 5. ANALYSIS OF DATA
0.005

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

The percentage efficiencies for different discharges and Froude numbers, and also overall efficiencies of the transition models are presented in Table 3 a . The efficiencies of the transition models for average of discharges and average of Froude numbers are also summarized in Table 3b, where the comparative feature of performance of the models is observed. The efficiency Table 3a: Overall hydraulic efficiencies of the transition models
Froude No., F1 Discharge, Q , cumec

Model I

Model II

Model III

Model IV

Overall Overall Overall Overall Efficiency Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency ,% , % , % ,% ,% , % , % ,%

0.002

are obtained
0.003

Table 2: Average velocity, energy correction factor, and efficiency (Model IV, Q = 0.0045 cumec)
Avg. Vel., v Avg. V / Avg. V / strip Section / Efficiency, / ,% Strip Section

Section

v y

v y
3

0.25 0.32 0.40 0.47 0.55 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.008

Strip I

Inlet

Strip II

Strip III

Strip I

Outlet

Strip II

Strip III

0.448 0.448 0.432 0.408 0.370 0.459 0.459 0.443 0.420 0.389 0.448 0.448 0.432 0.402 0.363 0.335 0.350 0.293 0.191 0.070 0.363 0.370 0.319 0.239 0.099 0.232 0.232 0.197 0.156 0.070

0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228

0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.002

0.421

0.434

0.419

0.248

0.278

0.177

0.0020 0.0020 0.0018 0.0015 0.0011 0.0021 0.0021 0.425 0.0019 0.0016 0.0013 0.0020 0.0020 0.0018 0.0014 0.0011 0.0009 0.0010 0.0006 0.0002 0.0000 0.0011 0.0012 0.234 0.0007 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000

1.02

1.01 1.01

curves for average of discharges and for average of Froude numbers for the four models have been shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
76.2

1.02

6. EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION AND RESULTS The surface configuration in the transitions I, II, and III exhibited local disturbances leading to diagonal waves, starting in the inlet section and persisting towards the entire length of the transition. The separation of flow took place at the boundaries near the exit of the transition. The points of separation were not symmetrical on either side; this was also observed by several investigators earlier. The separation points were found to move forward and
30

1.49

1.36 1.39

1.32

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur

Discharge, Q , cumec

Froude No., F 1

The velocities measured at different depths in the vertical indicated the usual turbulent boundary layer profile (mentioned in data table); as such, only the average velocity over a vertical was used in further analysis. Using the data for depth of flow and local velocity, the flow area and average velocity at the sections were known, and thus energy correction factors were calculated. After then these data were used to evaluate the efficiency of transition from the expression shown above. The table (Table 2) given below shows this in brief. Four transition profiles used commonly in the field [2, 3, 4 and 5], are tested for performance and compared the efficiency of the models, i.e. Model I, II, III, and IV respectively.

0.006

0.008

0.25 0.32 0.4 0.47 0.55 0.25 0.32 0.4 0.47 0.55 0.25 0.32 0.4 0.47 0.55 0.25 0.32 0.4 0.47 0.55 0.25 0.32 0.4 0.47 0.55

87.8 82.8 78.4 73.4 76.4 88.1 83 79.3 70.1 71.4 85.6 86.6 77.6 77.3 68.2 80 76 70.2 64.6 59.1 78.8 74.8 68.3 69.5 68.7

75.8

84.2 70.3 75.5 79.1 72.7 77.8 80 76.5 76.6 68.9 84.7 81.3 74.4 69.8 65.3 81.2 75.3 72.1 72.2 61.3 81.7 82.4 70.7 70.9 63.8

74.7

80 83.8 80.9 68.6 71.9 78.1 72.8 70.8 74 70.4 80.7 75.9 68.9 65.7 61.2 76.6 74.3 67 59 59.8 77.8 71.7 66.2 67.2 62.5

71.4

89.2 89 80.9 76.7 79 87.1 77.7 78.7 76.4 71.7 92.7 78.1 76.2 72.4 72.9 86.7 80.4 77.6 71.1 69.3 88.1 85.5 73.8 67.9 68.9

78.7

Table 3b: Hydraulic efficiencies of the transition models (for avg. of Q and avg. of F1)
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Average Efficiency Average EfficiencyAverage EfficiencyAverage Efficiency for Avg. for for for Avg. for Avg. for for Avg. for Avg. F1 F1 F1 Avg. Q Avg. Q Q Avg. Q 84.1 81.9 78.6 88.8 80.6 77.9 75.7 82.1 74.8 73.8 70.8 77.4 71.0 73.7 66.9 72.9 68.8 66.4 65.2 72.4 79.8 76.4 77.0 83.0 78. 4 76.0 73.2 78.3 79.1 75.1 70.5 78.5 70.0 72.4 67.3 77.0 72.0 73.9 69.1 76.8

DUET Journal

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

95.0 90.0 85.0 Model I Model II Model III

Maximum
Line

Velocity

Model I Q = 0.0015 cumec F1 = 0.40

Efficiency, e, %

80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Model IV

Maximum

Velocity

Line

Model II Q = 0.0015 cumec

0.55

0.60

F1 = 0.40

Froude Number, F1

Fig. 4: Efficiency (average of discharges) of transition

90.0 Model I 85.0 Model II Model III
Maximum

Model III Q = 0.0015 cumec

Velocity

Efficiency, e, %

80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060

Model IV

F1 = 0.40
Line

0.0070

0.0080

Maximum

Velocity

Line

Model IV Q = 0.0015 cumec

Discharge, Q, cumec

F1 = 0.40

Fig. 5: Efficiency (average of Froude numbers) of transition backward on either side. The flow in the downstream channel after expansion was found to be unstable and oscillating in nature. At times, flow was found to swing completely from one side to the other, thereby reversing the picture of separation and velocity distribution. Excepting a few cases, flow was never symmetrical with respect to the centre line of the channel. The maximum-velocity line coincided with the centre line of the channel, for a short length after entry. Thereafter, it shifted to the side to which the main flow attached. The percentage efficiency, based on the difference of kinetic energy at inlet and outlet, and head recovery, can be examined from Tables 3a and 3b, and Figs. 4 and 5. The superiority of Transition IV is apparent. Provision of smooth outlet in the optimal transition (Profile IV) eliminates the chances of eddy formation and separation to a significant amount. The eddy with reverse flow is observed strong for Transition I to III. The velocity profiles of Model IV are close to flat and near ideal; those of Model I, II, and III depict central deformations indicating one sidedness of maximum velocity thread (Fig. 6). Except Profile IV, all other transitions have abrupt ending at downstream part of transition (Fig. 7), which may be responsible for the separation noticed at the exit section in these transitions. The overall hydraulic efficiency of the transition models decreases from Model I to III, and these are 75.8%, 74.7%, and 71.4% respectively. Efficiency of the Model IV is the highest among the models, and it is
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur
All dimensions are in mm Scale : 0 50 Velocity5 Other dimensions-0

100 cm/s 10 cm

Fig.6: Velocity distributions across the width and along the length of transition models (Q = 0.0015 cumec, F1 = 0.40)
1.0

0.8

Swamee & Basak (1993) (Profile IV)

(b x-b 0 )/(b L -b 0 )

0.6

Hartley et al (1940) (Profile I) Chaturvedi (1963) (Profile II)

0.4

0.2

Nashta and Garde (1988) (Profile III)

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 x /L 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig.7: Comparison of bed-width profiles

31

DUET Journal

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2010

78.7%. Abrupt ending in the transition profiles evolved by Hartley et al [2], Chaturvedi [3], and Nashta and Garde [4], shifts the efficiency curves (Figs. 4 and 5) downward, whereas smooth ending in the optimal transition (Profile iii. IV) makes it efficient over others, and keeps the efficiency curve at top. Figure 8 shows the overall hydraulic efficiency of the various transition profiles, where dominance of the Profile IV is observed over others.
80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 Model I Model II Model III Model IV

flow decreases, the local velocity remains considerably high, which if allowed to persist in erodible channels will scour away bed and sides of channel. R EF ER ENC ES [1] J. Hinds, The hydraulic design of flume and siphon transitions, Trans., ASCE, 92, pp. 1423-1459, 1928. [2] G. E. Hartley, J. P. Jain and A. P. Bhattacharya, Report on the model experiments of fluming of bridges on Purwa branch, Technical Memorandum. 9, United Provinces Irrigation Res. Inst., Lucknow (now at Roorkee), India, pp. 94-110, 1940. [3] R. S. Chaturvedi, Expansive subcritical flow in open channel transitions, J. Inst. of Engrs., India, 43(9), pp. 447-487, 1963. [4] C. F. Nashta, and R. J. Garde, Subcritical flow in rigid-bed open channel expansions, J. Hydr. Res., 26(1), pp. 49-65, 1988. [5] P. K. Swamee and B. C. Basak, A comprehensive open-channel expansion transition design, J. of Irrg. and Drainage Div., ASCE, 119(1), pp. 1-17, 1993. [6] H. M. Morris and J. M. Wiggert, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering. Second Ed., The Ronald Press Co., New York, N. Y., 1972, pp. 184-188. [7] S. K. Mazumder, Optimum length of transition in open channel expansive subcritical flow, J. Inst. of Engrs., India, 48(3), pp. 463-478, 1967.

Efficiency, , %

Fig.8: Efficiency of the Transition Models

7. CONCLUSIONS In the light of the present study the following conclusions could be drawn: i. The Transition Profile IV yields a design that produces the highest efficiency among the existing profiles. So, this can be suggested for field use over others. The velocity distribution after expansion in case of Model I, II, and III becomes highly non-uniform with the result that although the average velocity of

ii.

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur

32