U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
|This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-07-036
Date: March 2007
Junction Loss Experiments: Laboratory Report
Kilgore's proposed method for calculating the energy loss across an access hole has three fundamental steps.(4)
These three steps are illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 3. Diagram. Flow chart for the proposed junction loss method.
INITIAL ACCESS HOLE ENERGY LEVEL
The initial energy level in the access hole structure, Ea1, is calculated as the maximum of three possible conditions; these determine the hydraulic regime within the structure. The three conditions considered for the outlet pipe are full flow, submerged inlet control, and unsubmerged inlet control. A fourth condition, partially full outlet control, could occur but was not pursued because it was not considered to be a practical limiting condition in storm drain design.
The full flow condition is considered when the outlet pipe is flowing full. This is a common occurrence when a storm drain system is surcharged and may also occur if flow in the pipe is limited by pipe capacity. The submerged inlet control condition occurs if flow is limited by the opening in the access hole structure to the outlet pipe rather than by the pipe capacity, and the resulting water depth in the access hole is sufficiently high that flow through the opening can be analyzed by orifice flow equations. The unsubmerged inlet control condition is also limited by the opening, but the resulting water level in the access hole is lower and weir flow equations can be used. The initial estimate of energy level is taken as the maximum of the three potential values (equation 2).
In this equation:
The full flow computation uses velocity head, but full flow only applies when the outlet pipe is flowing full. The two inlet control estimates depend only on discharge and pipe diameter. This is important because velocity is not a reliable parameter for the following reasons:
In the full flow condition, discharge into the access hole is limited by surcharges in the downstream storm drain system such that the outflow pipe is flowing full. Using a culvert analogy, this is one of the potential cases of outlet control. In this case, the initial structure energy level is estimated by the equation 3.
The entrance loss assuming outlet control, ΔE oc, is calculated by equation 4.
In these equations:
Equations 3 and 4 are used only when the outlet flow depth (yo) plus the outlet pressure head (Po/γ) is greater than Do, where Do is the outlet pipe diameter; otherwise Ea,ff is 0.0. The outlet pipe invert elevation (zo) is the datum for this analysis, and is set to zero. Equation 3 estimates energy level directly without considering the water surface within the access hole. Defining a one-dimensional velocity head in a location where highly turbulent multidirectional flow may exist presents a challenge. Marsalek noted that the energy loss coefficient is unaffected by changes in the relative access hole diameter as long as the ratio of b over Do ranges from 2 to 6.(5) Sangster's study showed that the energy loss coefficient is primarily affected when the ratio is less than 3.(6) The reanalyzed lab data, however, does not appear to support the need for a contraction factor such as the ratio of b over Do.
Submerged Inlet Control
The inlet control calculations employ the dimensionless ratio adapted from the analysis of culverts that is referred to here as the discharge intensity (DI). It is described by the ratio of discharge to pipe dimensions, where A is the area (equation 5).
The original submerged inlet control equation (equation 6) uses the analogy of inflow via a submerged orifice. Equation 6, however, should be limited to discharge intensities less than or equal to 1.6 because the reanalyzed data set did not include observations above this threshold.
Kilgore selected a coefficient equal to 1.2.(4) However, early lab experiments show that this coefficient should be about 1.0, instead of 1.2. Equation 7 is the revised equation.
Unsubmerged Inlet Control
The unsubmerged inlet control equation (equation 8) uses the analogy of inflow via a weir.
The coefficients for equations 4, 6, 7, and 8 were empirically derived to achieve a best fit with the reanalyzed laboratory data. These coefficients are lower than comparable values for culverts as reported in Norman, et al.(7) Since conditions in an access hole differ from conditions at the inlet to a culvert, one would not expect an exact correspondence. What is apparent from the lab data, however, is that the change in access hole energy level is analogous to culverts.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR BENCHING, ANGLED INFLOW, AND PLUNGING INFLOW
The initial structure energy level calculated in the previous section is used as a basis for estimating additional losses for discharges entering the structure at angles other then 180°, benching configurations, and discharges entering the structure at elevations above the water depth in the access hole. Flows entering a structure from an inlet above the water surface in the access hole can be treated as plunging flows. The effects of these conditions may be estimated and applied to the initial access hole energy level using the principle of superposition. This additive approach avoids a problem experienced in other methods where unreasonable values of energy losses are obtained when a single multiplicative coefficient takes on an extreme value. The revised access hole energy level, Ea, equals the initial estimate modified by each of the three factors covered in this section, as shown in equation 9.
In this equation:
As described earlier, Ea represents the level of the energy grade line (EGL) in the access hole. However, if Ea is calculated to be less than Eo (the outlet energy level), then Ea should be set equal to Eo. Designers may also wish to know the water level in the access hole. A conservative approach would be to use Ea as ya for design purposes. Traditional approaches to energy losses typically attempt to estimate all losses based on a single velocity head and for reasons described earlier the approach proposed in this paper is moving away from this strategy. The alternative proposed here is to estimate these additional energy losses as a function of the total energy losses computed between the access hole and the outlet pipe. The formulation in equation 10 expresses the additional losses, ∆E, as directly proportional to the energy loss estimated in the first step between the access hole and the outlet pipe.
In this equation, C is the energy loss coefficient—CB, Cθ, or CH—for benching, angled inflow, and plunging inflow, respectively. The term between the parentheses and beginning with yo is the total energy, Eo, calculated for the upstream end of the outlet pipe.
Note that the final Ea value cannot be less than Eo, and that the bracketed terms in equation 10 must be nonnegative. Another difficulty with equation 10 concerns the outlet velocity head. When the entrance condition to the outlet pipe limits flow into the pipe (inlet control) or the outlet pipe is flowing in a supercritical flow condition, the outlet velocity head may not be representative of the energy losses occurring within the access hole for reasons described earlier. The derivation of C for each adjustment is addressed in the following subsections.
The reanalyzed lab data suggests that the correction factors reported by Chang et al. and HEC 22 for benching, after adapting them to the form of equation used in this methodology, needed some adjustment.(1,2) Table 1 summarizes the suggested values for CB. A negative value indicates water depth will be reduced rather than increased.
The effect of skewed inflows entering the structure is addressed with momentum vectors. To maintain simplicity in the method, the contributions (θj) from all of the nonplunging inflows are resolved into a single flow-weighted angle, θw (equation 11).
The angles in the previous equation are measured from the outlet pipe (e.g., 180° is a straight pipe), and the summation only includes nonplunging flows as indicated by the subscript j. If all flows are plunging, θw is set to 180°. It does not matter whether the angle is defined in a clockwise or counterclockwise orientation as long as it is defined consistently. For example, if two pipes are entering the structure orthogonal to the outflow pipe, one must be designated as 90° and the other as 270° for the momentum vectors. The angled inflow coefficient is then calculated using equation 12.
Note that the angled inflow coefficient approaches zero as θw approaches 180° and the relative inflow approaches zero.
Plunging inflow is defined as inflow (pipe or inlet) where the invert of the pipe, zi, is greater than the estimated structure water depth, ya1 (taken as Ea1 as an approximation). Several approaches were attempted to describe a parameter that captures the presumed effect of plunging height on energy losses in the access hole based on defining a plunge height. A balance between simplicity and effectiveness was achieved by defining relative plunge height, Hk, for each plunging pipe, denoted by the subscript k (equation 13).
Equation 13 was incorporated into a relationship for CH (equation 14).
Note that as the proportion of plunging flows approaches zero, CH also approaches zero. Equations 13 and 14 are limited to conditions where zk is less than 10Do. If zk is greater than 10Do, zk should be set to 10Do.
INFLOW PIPE EXIT LOSSES
The final step is to calculate the EGL in each inflow pipe. Two cases must be considered. The first case is for nonplunging inflow pipes—that is, those pipes with a hydraulic connection to the water in the access hole. Inflow pipes operating under this condition are identified when Ea is greater than zi. In these cases, the energy at the inlet, Ei, is backcalculated from the access hole energy level and the exit loss, ∆Ei (equation 15).
Since the criticality of the inflow does not influence the exit loss, the exit loss can be calculated in the traditional manner using the inflow pipe velocity head (equation 16).
In this equation, the exit loss coefficient, Ki, equals 0.4 and is dimensionless.
As was found in examining the entrance losses, the ratio of b over Do was not a significant predictor of exit energy losses. The second case for an inflow pipe is a plunging condition. For pipes that are plunging, Ei is the EGL calculated from the inflow pipe hydraulics and will be approximately critical energy if the inlet pipe is on a subcritical slope.
The resulting energy level is used to continue computations upstream to the next access hole except when the inlet pipe is on a steep (supercritical) slope and is not submerged for its full length, in which case the hydraulics are controlled at the upstream end of the pipe.
Thus, the three-step procedure of estimating—first, entrance losses, then additional losses, and finally exit losses—is repeated at each access hole.