Ascecp 200 40856 195 1

Hydraulic Design of a Lazy River
Bruce M. McEnroe1
1
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of
Kansas, 1530 W. 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66045; PH (785)864-2925; email:
mcenroe@ku.edu
Abstract
Lazy rivers are popular attractions at modern aquatic centers and water parks. These
recreational water channels carry patrons on floating tubes around a meandering loop.
The current is maintained by pumps that withdraw a small fraction of the flow from
the channel through large bottom grates and return it to the channel in jets directed
downstream. This paper presents the hydraulic relationships needed for lazy-river
design. These relationships account for the propulsion of the flow by the water jets
and the resistance to flow resulting from friction, bends and drag forces on standing
persons. The total pump output power is minimized when the downstream
component of the jet velocity equals twice the desired current speed. However, other
practical considerations generally favor a higher jet speed. Field tests on three lazy
rivers indicate that a Manning n value of 0.015 is sufficient to account for boundary
friction, bend losses and other local losses. Persons standing in the flow cause added
drag, which can reduce the current speed substantially. A design example illustrates
the practical application of the relationships and experimental findings.
The investigations presented in this paper were conducted for Water’s Edge Aquatic
Design LLC of Lenexa, Kansas. Water’s Edge Aquatic Design is a leading design
firm specializing in aquatic centers and water parks. The relationships in this paper
have been applied successfully to numerous lazy-river design projects.
Introduction
Lazy rivers are popular attractions at modern aquatic centers and water parks. These
recreational water channels carry patrons on floating tubes around a meandering loop.
Current speeds are typically 3 ft/s or lower. The current is maintained by pumps that
withdraw a small fraction of the flow from the channel through large grates and return
it to the channel in jets directed downstream. Only a small fraction of the channel
flow can be withdrawn and pumped at a single location without disturbing the flow
excessively, so multiple pumping stations may be needed. The main variables in the
hydraulic design of the propulsion system are the number of pumping stations and the
number, diameter, angle and speed of the jets. The objective is to find a workable
combination of these variables that will yield the desired current speed.
Copyright ASCE 2006 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2006
Downloaded 01 Jun 2011 to 87.194.144.48. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
This paper presents the hydraulic relationships needed for lazy-river design. Energy
aspects of lazy-river design are also analyzed. Results from field tests on three lazy
rivers provide guidance on Manning n values to account for bend losses as well as
friction. An example illustrates the practical application of the hydraulic relationships
and experimental findings.
Figure 1. Summer Fun in a Lazy River
Hydraulic Relationships for Lazy-River Design
The flow in the lazy river can be analyzed with the momentum equation for one-
dimensional steady flow. The control volume for the analysis is the entire volume of
water in the channel. Water exits the control volume through grates on the bottom or
sides of the channel, and re-enters the control volume through downstream-directed
jets on the bottom or sides of the channel. The downstream component of the exit
velocity is assumed to equal the current speed in the channel. The momentum
equation, applied in the direction of flow, is
Fb + Fp = Q jVc Q j Vj cos (1)
in which Fb is the drag exerted on the flow by boundary friction and bend losses, Fp is
the drag exerted on the flow by persons standing in the channel, is the density of the
water, Qj is the combined discharge of all jets, Vc is the current speed in the channel,
Vj is the jet speed, and is the angle of the jet discharge relative to the direction of
flow in the channel. The drag on floating persons is relatively small and is neglected
here.
The boundary drag force can be expressed as
Fb = PL (2)
in which is the average shear stress at the boundary, P is the wetted perimeter, and L
is the length of the channel measured along the centerline. The average shear stress is
related to the friction slope by the equation
= R Sf (3)
in which is the specific weight of the water, R is the hydraulic radius, and Sf is the
friction slope. The friction slope is the head loss per unit distance of flow. In this
analysis, the friction slope accounts for head losses due to bends as well as boundary
friction. The substitution of RSf for in Eq. 3 leads to
Fb = U Sf (4)
in which U is the volume of water in the channel. The friction slope can be computed
with the Manning equation,
2
Vc n e
Sf = (5)
C R2/3
in which Vc is the average velocity in the channel, ne is the effective value of the
Manning resistance coefficient and C is a units-conversion constant (C = 1 for R in
meters and Vc in m/s; C = 1.49 for R in feet and Vc in ft/s). The effective Manning n
accounts for bend losses as well as boundary friction. Replacing Sf in Eq. 4 with the
right-hand side of Eq. 5 leads to
U ne2 2
Fb = Vc (6)
C2 R 4 / 3
Persons standing in the flow can exert considerable drag on the flow. This drag force
can be expressed as
Vc 2
Fp = m C D A f (7)
2
in which Fp is the total drag force from standing persons, m is the number of standing
persons, CD is the drag coefficient, and Af is the frontal area of a standing person
(normal to the direction of flow, below the water surface).
The sum of the boundary forces and the drag forces on standing persons can be
expressed in the form
Fb + Fp = K Vc 2 (8)
in which K is a combined drag constant defined as
g n e2 U 1
K = 2 4 / 3 + m CD A f (9)
C R 2
The substitution of the right-hand side of Eq. 8 for Fb + Fp in Eq. 1 leads to
K Vc 2 = Q j (Vj cos Vc ) (10)
Eq. 10 can be rearranged algebraically to obtain explicit equations for Qj and for Vc.
These equations are
K Vc 2
Qj = (11)
Vj cos Vc
Q j + Q j2 + 4 K Q j Vj cos
Vc = (12)
2K
Eq. 11 is useful for preliminary design, and Eq. 12 is useful for analysis of proposed
designs.
Energy Aspects of Lazy-River Design
A desired current speed, Vc, can be achieved by different combinations of jet

discharge and jet speed. The smaller the jet discharge, the higher the jet speed needed
to obtain the desired current speed. However, different combinations of jet discharge
and jet speed require different amounts of power for pumping. It is useful to find the
combination of jet discharge and jet speed that requires the least power. The pump
power, P, equals Qjhp, in which hp is the pump head. The pump head is proportional
to the square of the jet speed; therefore, the power requirement is proportional to
QjVj2:
P Q j Vj2 (13)
The right-hand side of Eq. 11 can be substituted into Eq. 13 to obtain
K Vc 2 Vj2
P (14)
Vj cos Vc
The jet speed that requires the least power for a given current speed can be found by
differentiating Eq. 14 with respect to Vj, setting the result equal to zero, and solving
for Vj. The result is
Vj cos = 2 Vc (15)
This result indicates that power requirement is minimized when the downstream
component of the jet velocity equals twice the desired current speed; i.e., when the
ratio (Vj cos )/Vc equals 2. Other values of (Vj cos )/Vc require more power. The
ratio of the actual power requirement to the minimum power requirement, Pmin, varies
with the ratio (Vj cos )/Vc as follows:
2
Vj cos
P 1 Vc
= (16)
Pmin 4 Vj cos
1
Vc
Figure 2 shows this relationship graphically. The power requirement is only mildly
sensitive to (Vj cos )/Vc in the vicinity of the optimum value; the power requirement
is within 20% of the minimum value for (Vj cos )/Vc values between 1.4 and 3.4.
Although pump output power is minimized by a jet speed equal to 2Vc/(cos ), other
practical considerations generally dictate a much higher jet speed. The lower the jet
velocity, the greater the jet discharge needed to maintain the desired current speed. A
lazy river designed for minimum power would typically require a jet discharge equal
to a large fraction of the channel flow. A large number of pumping stations, each
withdrawing a small fraction of the flow, would be needed to avoid excessive
disturbance of the flow. Such a system would cost much more to construct and
maintain than a system with a fewer pumping stations and a higher jet speed. Safety
considerations dictate an upper limit on jet speed. Jet speeds higher than 20 ft/s
should be avoided.
3.0
2.5
2.0
P / Pmin
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(Vj cos ) / Vc
Figure 2. Relative Power Requirements for a Fixed Current Speed
Effective Manning n from Field Tests
Bend losses in lazy rivers are clearly significant but difficult to estimate. Hydraulic
engineering textbooks and handbooks provide approximate head-loss coefficients for
isolated bends. However, summing the loss coefficients for individual bends leads to
overestimation of losses for layouts with connected or closely spaced bends. In our
formulation, the effective Manning resistance coefficient, ne, accounts for flow
resistance from both friction and bends.
We conducted field tests on three lazy rivers to determine the effective Manning n
values from measured current speeds and jet speeds. We tested lazy rivers at
municipal aquatic centers in Marshalltown, Clive, and West Des Moines, Iowa.
These facilities were all designed by Water’s Edge Aquatic Design LLC. The
channels are all 10 feet wide with walls of smooth painted concrete and a water depth
of 3.5 feet. Channel lengths range from 310 to 610 ft and bend radii range from 30 ft
to 45 ft. The currents are driven by 1.5-in. bottom jets directed 22.5º above the
horizontal. The three lazy rivers all have side openings with steps for entry and exit
that disturb the flow and cause local energy losses.
The tests were performed with the lazy rivers running at reduced current speeds with
some jets shut off or throttled. Current speeds ranged from 1.5 ft/s to 2.4 ft/s, and jet
speeds ranged from 8.7 ft/s to 19.3 ft/s.
Effective Manning n values for the three tests were computed from the equation
1/ 2
C2 R 4 / 3 a j n n
ne = cos Vj,i 2
Vc Vj,i (16)
g U Vc 2 i =1 i =1
in which aj is the cross-sectional area of a single jet, i is a jet numbering index, and
Vj,i is the velocity for jet i. Eq. 16 was obtained by modifying Eq. 10 to account for
the different velocities of individual jets, replacing K with the right-hand side of Eq. 9
(with m = 0), and solving for ne. The field data yielded ne values of 0.015 for
Marshalltown, 0.013 for Clive, and 0.015 for West Des Moines. Based on these
field-test results, an effective Manning n value of 0.015 appears to be appropriate for
the design of a typical lazy river.
Example Application
The following example illustrates the practical application of the hydraulic

relationships for lazy river design.
Problem: A lazy river is to be 600 ft long and 10 feet wide with a water depth of 3.5
ft. The flow will be propelled by rows of water jets in the channel bottom. Each row
will contain ten 1.5-in.-diameter jets, directed 22.5º above the horizontal in the
downstream direction.
The desired maximum current speed with no persons standing in the channel is 3 ft/s,
and the desired maximum jet speed is 20 ft/s. A single pumping station should
withdraw no more than 5% of the flow in the channel. Determine the total discharge
that must be pumped and the number of pumping stations needed. Also find the
current speed for this design with ten persons standing in the channel.
Solution: At a depth of 3.5 ft, the channel has a cross-sectional area of 35 ft2, a
wetted perimeter of 17 feet and a hydraulic radius of 2.059 ft. The total volume of
water in the 600-ft-long channel is 17,500 ft3. The effective Manning n is set to
0.015, based on the findings from the three field tests. The drag constant, K, with no
standing persons is computed with Eq. 9:
g n e 2 U 32.2 (0.015) 2 (17,500)

K = 2 4/3 = 2 4/3
= 21.80 ft 2
C R (1.49) (2.059)
The required jet discharge for a current speed of 3 ft/s and a jet speed of 20 ft/s is
computed with Eq. 11:
K Vc 2 21.80 (3)2
Qj = = = 12.68 cfs
Vj cos Vc 20cos 22.5o 3
At a jet speed of 20 ft/s, a discharge of 12.68 cfs requires a total jet area of 0.634 ft2,
or 52 jets of 1.5-in. diameter. Therefore, a design with sixty jets arranged in six rows
of ten is selected.
At the desired current speed of 3 ft/s, the discharge in the channel is 105 cfs. The
total jet discharge of 12.68 cfs is 12.1% of the discharge in the channel. Because a
single pumping station should withdraw no more than 5% of the channel flow, three
pumping stations are needed. Each pumping station will supply two rows of jets.
At the maximum jet speed of 20 ft/s, the total discharge from sixty jets is 14.73 cfs.
The corresponding current speed is computed with Eq. 12:
Q j + Q j2 + 4 K Q j Vj cos
Vc =
2K
14.73 + (14.73)2 + 4 (21.80) (14.73) (20 cos 22.5o ) ft
= = 3.21
2 (21.80) s
The effect of ten persons standing in the channel can be estimated roughly by
assuming a drag coefficient of 1.2 and a frontal area of 3 ft2 (below the water surface)
for each standing person. The combined drag constant for these conditions is
computed with Eq. 9:
g n e2 U 1 32.2 (0.015)2 (17, 500) 1

K = 2 4 / 3 + m CD A f = 2 4/3
+ (10) (1.2) (3.0) = 39.80 ft 2
C R 2 (1.49) (2.059) 2
The corresponding current speed, computed with Eq. 12, is 2.44 ft/s. This result
shows that the added drag from standing persons can cause a substantial reduction in
current speed.
Summary
Some fairly simple relationships based on momentum and resistance principles

provide a sound basis for the hydraulic design of lazy rivers. Energy consumption is
minimized when the downstream component of the jet velocity equals twice the
desired current speed. However, other practical considerations generally favor a
higher jet speed. Field tests on three lazy rivers indicate that a Manning n value of
0.015 is sufficient to account for boundary friction, bend losses and other local losses.
Persons standing in the flow cause added drag, which can reduce the current speed
substantially.
Acknowledgment
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by Water’s Edge Aquatic Design
LLC of Lenexa, Kansas. The author sincerely appreciates this support. Jeff Bartley,
P.E., and Katie Schultz of Water’s Edge Aquatic Design assisted with the field tests.

Ascecp 200 40856 195 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ascecp 200 40856 195 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydraulic Design of a Lazy River

Figure 1. Summer Fun in a Lazy River

Hydraulic Relationships for Lazy-River Design

Fb + Fp = Q jVc Q j Vj cos (1)

The boundary drag force can be expressed as

in which K is a combined drag constant defined as

The substitution of the right-hand side of Eq. 8 for Fb + Fp in Eq. 1 leads to

K Vc 2 = Q j (Vj cos Vc ) (10)

Energy Aspects of Lazy-River Design

A desired current speed, Vc, can be achieved by different combinations of jet

The right-hand side of Eq. 11 can be substituted into Eq. 13 to obtain

Effective Manning n from Field Tests

The following example illustrates the practical application of the hydraulic

g n e 2 U 32.2 (0.015) 2 (17,500)

g n e2 U 1 32.2 (0.015)2 (17, 500) 1

Some fairly simple relationships based on momentum and resistance principles

You might also like