J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.

, 3(2)996-1004, 2013
2013, TextRoad Publication

ISSN 2090-4304
Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research
www.textroad.com

Evaluating Velocity and Discharge in Horseshoe and D-Shape Cross sections

Hossein. M. V. Samani1*, Saeed Kazemi Mohsenabadi1, Heidar Ali Kashkouli1, Hossein Sedghi2
1

Department of Water Sciences Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan,
Iran
2
Department of Water Sciences Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
The horseshoe and D-Shape cross sections are found in many diversion tunnels. In this research physical equations
of these cross sections were investigated. Meanwhile, by differentiating of Manning equation the depth of maximum
velocity and discharge was assigned. In addition, dimensionless graphs were presented by which area, perimeter and
water surface width were easily determined. Finally dimensionless graphs for calculating the velocity, discharge and
their profiles were found.
KEYWORDS: horseshoe cross section, D-Shape cross section, Manning equation, maximum velocity, maximum
discharge.
INTRODUCTION
The horseshoe and D-Shape cross sections are applied in diversion tunnels in a great deal (Merkley, 2005). So
finding cross section properties as area, perimeter and water surface width will be important in order to calculate the
hydraulic parameters (Chow, 1959). Merkley (2005) introduced the equations related to these parameters. He also
presented the equations for cross-sectional area, wetted perimeter, top width, and depth to area centroid as functions
of the depth of water in standard horseshoe sections. In addition, velocity and discharge profile are used in design,
operation, and maintenance of open channels (Vatankhah and Easa, 2011). They also suggested explicit solutions for
the critical and normal depths for trapezoidal, circular, and horseshoe channels using the curve fitting method. For
the normal depth, explicit equations are available for horseshoe channels (Liu. et.al, 2010).
In this research dimensionless graphs are presented by which the cross sections mentioned above is designed.
Meanwhile the depth of maximum velocity and discharge will be obtained. Finally dimensionless graphs for
determining the velocity and discharge profile which are related to depth flow are provided.
Geometric properties
Horseshoe cross section
According to Fig. 1, horseshoe cross section is divided into three zones of flow depth. Merkley (2005),
calculated h1, h2 and h3 as shown below.
1 + 7
=
1
(1)
4
=
=

2
2

(2)
(3)

*Corresponding Author: Hossein. M. V. Samani, Department of Water Sciences Engineering, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran. Email: Hossein.Samani@gmail.com
996

Samani et al., 2013

Fig. 1. Horseshoe cross section and its geometric symbols for three zones of flow depth

Based on Fig. 1, equations related to area, perimeter and water surface width are not the same (Merkley, 2005).
These equations are seen below
a. Wetted area
0

= ( ) (2 ) +
sin
+ (4)
2
II <
=
Where

2
2

+ sin

(5)

is the area corresponding to = (Eq. (4)).

III <
2
( ) +
sin
+ (6)
2
4
Where
is the area corresponding to = (Eq. (5)).
b. Wetted perimeter
0

= 2 cos
1
(7)
=

II <
2
= 2 cos
cos

+ (8)
2
2
Where
is the area corresponding to = (Eq. (7)).
III <
2
=
cos
1
+ (9)
2
Where
is the area corresponding to = (Eq. (8)).
c.

Water surface width

0
=2

1 1

(10)

997

J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)996-1004, 2013

II <
=2

(11)

III <

1 1

(12)

Where h is water depth, C1 and C2 are:

=

1 1

=1

sin

(13)

1 + 7
(14)
2

D-Shape cross section

Fig. 2 illustrates that D-Shape cross section is divided into two zones. If flow depth is less than semicircular
radius, the cross section will be rectangular.

E
Segment

B
A

O
h

2
D

Fig. 2. D-Shape cross section and its geometric symbols for two zones of flow depth
The related equations are as follows
a. Wetted area
0
= (15)
II <
=

[ 2 + sin 2 ] +

(16)

998

Samani et al., 2013

is the area corresponding to =

Where
b.

(Eq. (15)).

Wetted perimeter
0
=

2
+ 2 (17)

II <
[4 + ] (18)
2
Water surface width
=

c.

2
= (19)

II <
= . sin (20)
Where h is water depth, D is semicircular diameter.
Derivation of equations
The uniform flow condition in an open channel is described by the following Mannings formula (Chow 1959):

(21)

(22)

Where is the unit conversion constant, 1.0 (SI), 1.486 (CU), V is the velocity, Q is the discharge, S0 is the
longitudinal slope of the channel, and n is Mannings roughness coefficient.
Horseshoe cross section
In order to calculate maximum velocity and discharge, Eq. 21 and 22 are differentiated with respect to h.

= 0

= 0 5

= 0 (23)

= 0 (24)

Differentiating Eqs. 4-9, yields

0

= 2 (2 ) (25)
=

2
1 1

(26)

999

J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)996-1004, 2013

II <

= 3

4 + 4 (27)
4

4 ( 2)
III <

(28)

= 2 ( ) (29)
=

( )

(30)

D-Shape cross section

In order to calculate maximum velocity and discharge, Eq. 21 and 22 are differentiated with respect to .
= 0
= 0 5

= 0 (31)
2

= 0 (32)

Differentiating Eqs. 15-18, yields

0

= (33)
= 2 (34)

II <
=
=

8
2

[1 cos(2 )] (35)

(36)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Horseshoe cross section

According to the Eqs. 4-14, dimensionless graphs for calculating area, perimeter and water surface width are
presented (Fig. 3 and 4). These parameters are calculated by using y and H.

1000

Samani et al., 2013

3.5
3.0

P/H

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
y/H

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

T/H

V/Vmax
A/H^2

Q/Qmax

Fig. 3. Dimensionless graph for calculating perimeter in horseshoe cross section

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

y/H
Discharge

Velocity

Water Surface Width

Area

Fig. 4. Dimensionless graph for calculating area, water surface width, velocity and discharge
in horseshoe cross section
Depth of maximum velocity
and discharge
obtained through numerical solution of Eqs. 23-30. A
look at Table 1 and 2 demonstrates the results. In these tables, y is depth of maximum velocity and discharge, y/H is
submergence percent.
Table. 1. Depth of maximum velocity in horseshoe cross section
H (m)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3

y (m)
9.730
8.919
8.108
7.298
6.487
5.676
4.865
4.054
3.243
2.433
Average (%)

1001

y/H
81.08
81.08
81.08
81.09
81.09
81.08
81.09
81.09
81.08
81.09
81.09

J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)996-1004, 2013

Table. 2. Depth of maximum discharge in horseshoe cross section

H (m)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3

y (m)
11.250
10.313
9.375
8.438
7.500
6.563
5.625
4.688
3.750
2.813

y/H
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75
93.75

Average (%)

On the basis of the results shown in Tables 1 and 2, depth of maximum velocity
occurred
= 0.8109 (37)
= 0.9375 (38)

and maximum discharge

Determination of velocity and discharge profile

In the first stage, maximum velocity and discharge are determined with the help of Tables 1, 2 and using Eqs.
21, 22. Next, according to the dimensions of horseshoe cross section and Fig. 4 velocity and discharge profiles are
assigned. These profiles play important role in designing diversion tunnels and another hydraulic structures.
D-Shape cross section
Fig. 5 indicates that dimensionless graphs for area, water surface width and velocity. So it can be noted that
maximum velocity does not occur in maximum depth.
1.1

&

V/Vmax

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

&

0.5
0.4

A/D^2

T/D

0.6

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

Area

0.3

0.4

0.5
y/D

0.6

Water Surface Width

0.7

0.8

0.9

Velocity

Fig. 5. Dimensionless graph for calculating area, water surface width, velocity

1002

1.0

Samani et al., 2013

Fig. 6 attempts to demonstrate the dimensionless graph for perimeter. In other words, it shows the calculation
of this parameter. In addition, it is seen that maximum discharge occurs when the cross section is not full.
4.0
3.5

P/D

& Q/Qmax

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
y/D

Perimeter

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Discharge

Fig. 6. Dimensionless graph for calculating perimeter and discharge

As noted before, maximum velocity
and discharge
take place in the depth less than maximum
depth. In order to find the mentioned depth by using the numerical solution of Eqs. 31-36, Tables 3, 4 will be gotten.
In these tables, y is depth of maximum velocity and discharge, y/H is submergence percent. Based on Tables 3 and
4, indicated depth of maximum velocity
and maximum discharge
occurred:
= 0.8196 (39)
= 0.9395 (40)

Table. 5. Depth of maximum velocity in D-Shape cross section

D
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

y
9.836
9.016
8.197
7.377
6.557
5.738
4.918
4.098
3.276
2.459
1.639
Average (%)

1003

y/D
81.97
81.96
81.97
81.97
81.96
81.97
81.97
81.96
81.90
81.97
81.95
81.96

J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)996-1004, 2013

Table. 6. Depth of maximum discharge in D-Shape cross section

D
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

y
11.274
10.335
9.395
8.456
7.516
6.577
5.637
4.698
3.758
2.819
1.879
Average (%)

y/D
93.95
93.95
93.95
93.96
93.95
93.96
93.95
93.96
93.95
93.97
93.95
93.95

Summery and conclusion

In this paper, equations of horseshoe cross section were presented and equations of D-Shape cross section
obtained based on physical properties. By using Manning equation, differential equations related to depth of
maximum velocity and discharge were assigned in both horseshoe and D-Shape cross section. Therefore, based on
these equations the results are as follow:
1. Dimensionless graphs for determining the area, perimeter and water surface width were introduced.
2. In order to allocate the velocity and discharge profiles, dimensionless graphs were drawn.
3. With numerical solution of deferential equations, the depth of maximum velocity and discharge were
allotted.
4. In horseshoe cross section the depth of maximum velocity was 0.8109 .
5. In horseshoe cross section the depth of maximum discharge was 0.9375 .
6. In D-Shape cross section the depth of maximum velocity was 0.8196 .
7. In D-Shape cross section the depth of maximum discharge was 0.9395 .

REFERENCES
-

Chow VT. Open-channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.

Merkley, G, P. Standard horseshoe cross section geometry. Agricultural Water Management 71 (2005) 61
70.

Liu J, Wang Z, Fang X. Formulas for Computing Geometry and Critical Depth of General Horseshoe
Tunnels. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 2010; Vol. 53(4): 1159-1164.

Vatankhah, Ali R. Easa, Said M. Explicit solutions for critical and normal depths in channels with different
shapes. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 4349.

1004