KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2016) 20(2):943-950 Water Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2016 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0645-0 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

An Experimental Investigation of the Aeration Performance

of Parshall Flume and Venturi Flumes
O. Faruk Dursun*
Received October 30, 2013/Revised April 3, 2015/Accepted May 6, 2015/Published Online June 12, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Parshall flumes are commonly used in irrigation systems, storm water systems, and sewer systems in order to measure the flow
rate. The dissolved oxygen content in surface waters is a main indicator of the quality of that water for human use as well as use by
the aquatic plant and animal life. A higher dissolved oxygen content supplies better water quality. Hydraulic structures can increase
dissolved oxygen ratios by causing turbulent fluctuations during which air bubbles entrain the bulk of the flow. This present study
focuses on determining the aeration efficiency of a small 3 inch Parshall flume and Modified Venturi flumes from this Parshall flume,
in particular the effect of varying throat width, throat length and sill height. The experiments were conducted for 26 different
Modified Venturi flumes and 1 Parshall flume. In the study, the water surface profiles and aeration efficiencies of the flumes are
determined. The results indicate that Parshall and Venturi flumes are effective for oxygen transfer for channels having zero or highly
low slopes. In addition, more studies are needed to find the best efficient system for horizontal channels.
Keywords: aeration performance, dissolved oxygen, parshall flume, oxygen transfer, open channel flow, venturi flume
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction aeration efficiency of stepped-channel without end sill chutes.

River water quality and artificial canal systems are directly
related to the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ratio. Oxygen concentration
decreases in large dams having wide reservoir areas or volumes.
The same problem occurs, which poses a threat to aquatic biota,
along irrigation canals because of the lack of turbulent flow. The
construction of stepped spillways, nozzle orifices, free overfalls
and chutes with flip buckets can prevent this problem from
occurring in dams. The same problem can be solved for rivers by
using cascades, weirs and drop structures.
Free-surface flow configurations that lead to a local air
entrainment are always connected with some form of surface
discontinuity. Typical jet-type flow configurations are weirs, free
overfalls, drop structures and chutes with flip buckets. In these
structures, the free jet plunges into a downstream water pool
causing the entrainment of air bubbles if the free jet velocity
exceeds a critical value and aeration occurs.
Several experimental studies are in the literature related to the
aeration performance of hydraulic structures. Wilhelms et al.
(1992), Chanson (1995), Ervine (1998) and Gulliver et al. (1998)
review some of these studies. A set of experimental data for
aeration effect of stepped chutes with nappe and skimming flows
submitted by Tebbutt et al. (1977). Chanson and Toombes (2002)
carried out gas-liquid interface measurements in a stepped channel.
Baylar and Emiroglu (2003) and Baylar et al. (2011) studied the
Emiroglu and Baylar (2003) studied the aeration efficiency of
stepped-channel chutes with end sills. Kaya and Emiroglu (2010)
carried out a range of experiments to predict the aeration
efficiency of baffled chutes.
Hydraulic structures such as weir, baffled block chutes, stepped
spillways and cascades have an impact on the amount of DO in a
river system. However, stepped channel chutes could not be
constructed at straight channels and rivers. In other words, the
weirs, baffled block chutes, stepped spillways and cascades are
used in drop structures. Hence, in order to increase the DO
concentration in channels with low slope, Parshall flume usage
may provide an appropriate solution for this purpose.
The Parshall flume was designed and named by Ralph L.
Parshall. He began with work done by Cone in 1917 and developed
it in 1922. Then, the flume was installed in many American
irrigation facilities (Heiner et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2010).
Following, the Parshall flume was used in irrigation projects
worldwide (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR, 2001). At the present time, the Parshall
flume has been used in several projects, such as irrigation and
wastewater channels and rivers, in order to measure the discharges.
A Parshall flume can be composed of a converging approach
section, ending with a diverging exit section and a flat floor that
has a throat of defined width with a downward sloped floor and
upward slope sections (Parshall, 1926, 1936).The Parshall flume

*Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Inonu University Malatya, Turkey (Corresponding Author, E-mail: ofdur-
sun@gmail.com)

− 943 −
 O. Faruk Dursun
is designed to provide accurate flow measurement (±2% to 5%)
in a wide variety of open channels (Parshall, 1926, 1936; Heiner
et al., 2011).
The Parshall flume accelerates flow though a contraction of
both the parallel sidewalls and a drop in the floor at the flume
throat (USBR, 2013). At the end of the flume a submerged hydraulic
jump occurs caused by downstream water level. Consequently, a
smooth transition from subcritical to supercritical flow at the
throat section and a transition from supercritical to subcritical
flow at the downstream of the flume take place in the Parshall
flume flow.
Peck (1998) asserts that the flow rate should be based on the
downstream water level of a Parshall flume. USBR (1997) gave
the flow rate formula as Eq. (1). The flow rate formula of the
Parshall flume was tabulated to the ISO 9826 for different sizes
(Kim et al., 2010).
Free-flow discharge through the Parshall flume follows the
general form:
Q = a ⋅ ha
b
(1)
where Q is the discharge in cubic meter per second (m3/s); a is
the coefficient dependent upon flume size; ha is the flow depth
measured upstream from the crest of the flume at a distance of
two-thirds of the converging section length; and b is the
exponent of the head (ha) (Thornton et al., 2009).
Parshall flumes usage for surface water aeration may provide
an effective solution for highly small drops. In this study, the
aeration performance of a small 3 inch Parshall flume and Modified
Venturi flumes from this Parshall flume were investigated.
Furthermore, there are not many aeration studies for highly small
drops in the literature.
For the current study, a 3 inch Parshall flume (7.62 cm throat
width) (ASTM, 1941) and its different dimensions of throat
widths, throat lengths and sill heights were constructed. A
Parshall flume and 26 Modified Venturi flumes, in total, 27
different sized flumes and four discharges were used. In the study,
aeration impacts and water surface profiles were investigated.
2. Oxygen Transfer Process
The instant rate of change in dissolved oxygen concentration
(dC/dt) is as follows:
dC
------- = K L A
--- ( C s – C ) (2)
dt V
in which C is the dissolved oxygen concentration; KL is the liquid
film coefficient for oxygen; A is the surface area associated with
the volume V, over which transfer occurs; Cs is the saturation
concentration; and t is the time.
Equation (2) does not consider sources and sinks of oxygen in
the water body because their rates are relatively slow compared
to the oxygen transfer that occurs in most hydraulic structures
due to the increase in free-surface turbulence and the large
quantity of air that is normally entrained into the flow (Emiroglu
− 944 −
and Baylar, 2006).
The predictive relations assume that Cs is constant and
specified by the water-atmosphere partitioning. If that assumption
is made, Cs is constant with respect to time, and the oxygen
transfer efficiency (aeration efficiency), E may be calculated as
(Gulliver et al., 1990):
Cd – Cu 1
E = ---------------
- = 1 – --- (3)
Cs – C u r
where u and d are the subscripts indicating upstream and
downstream locations, respectively; and r is the oxygen deficit
ratio [ ( Cs – Cu ) ⁄ ( Cs – Cd ) ] .
If the transfer efficiency value is 1.0, the full transfer up to the
saturation value has occurred at the structure. No transfer would
correspond to E = 0.0. The saturation concentration in distilled water
may be obtained from charts or equations. This is an approximation
because the saturation dissolved oxygen concentration for natural
waters is often different from that of distilled water due to the
salinity effects (Emiroglu and Baylar, 2006).
The comparative evaluations of oxygen taken by using hydraulic
structures require that aeration efficiency be corrected to a
reference temperature. To provide a uniform basis for comparison
of measurement results, the aeration efficiency is generally
normalized to a 20oC standard. Gulliver et al. (1990) suggest that
the following equation should be used to describe the influence
of temperature:
1 − E20 = (1 − E)1/f (4)
where E is the transfer efficiency at actual water temperature; E20
is the transfer efficiency for 20oC; and f is the exponent described
as:
f = 1.0 + 2.1 × 10−2 (T − 20) + 8.26 × 10−5 (T − 20)2 (5)
In this study, the aeration efficiency was normalized to 20oC
using Eq. (4 and 5).
3. Experimental Setup and Measuring Techniques
The tests were performed in the Hydraulic Laboratory at the
Firat University, Elazig, Turkey in 2013. The experiments were
conducted using a prismatic rectangular channel with 0.40 m
wide, 0.60 m deep and 5.00 m long. Schematic representation
of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. 27 different sized
flumes were adequately mounted in the channel. A 3 inch/7.62
cm Parshall flume and 26 Modified Venturi flumes from this
Parshall flume were used in the study. Dimensions of the
Parshall flume (F. 13) and Modified Venturi flumes used in the
present study are given in Table 1. As is seen from Fig. 1,
deoxygenated water was pumped from storage tank to stilling
tank. Flow was initiated and slowly increased to the desired
flow rate. The discharge was measured by means of an
electromagnetic flow meter installed in the supply line. The
type of Parshall flume with 45 degree wing wall is shown in
Fig. 2.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 An Experimental Investigation of the Aeration Performance of Parshall Flume and Venturi Flumes

Fig. 1. Experimental Arrangement

All experimental runs were carried out for four unit discharges
ranging between 25 and 100 L/s.m. A Mitutoyo digital point
gauge with ±0.01 mm sensitivity was fixed upstream at a
distance of 0.50 m from the Parshall flume as shown in Fig. 1.
All flumes, open channels and storage tanks, were made of steel
plates. The side surface of the open channel was made of glass in
order to show the flow.
Water was supplied to the main channel through a supply pipe
from a pump, and a gate valve controlled the flow. The discharge
was measured to an accuracy of ±0.01 L/s, by means of a Krohne
electromagnetic flow-meter installed in the supply line.
Water depth measurements were conducted using the digital
point gauges at eight measurement points, along the channel
centerline. Water surface measurements were made by using a
special type of measurement car, which can move in both directions
on a rail.
Each experiment was started by filling the storage tank with
water by adding Na2SO3 and CoCl2 for chemical de-oxygenation.
During the experiments, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) measurements
upstream and downstream were taken using calibrated portable
YSI Model DO 200 oxygen meters at the locations identified in
Fig. 1. Measurements were made by submerging the probe to a
Fig. 2. Configuration of Parshall Flume
depth of between 0.05 m and 0.20 m at sampling points. The DO
meters were calibrated daily according to local atmospheric
pressure, prior to use, by the air calibration method. Calibration
procedures followed those recommended by the manufacturer.
The calibration was performed in humid air under ambient
conditions. In this study, the saturation concentrations were
determined by a chart designed by McGhee (1991). The
salinity effect was minimized by using tap water with a low
salt concentration.
All flumes were placed into the channel before each experiment
run. Water depths were measured for four discharges (10, 20, 30
and 40 L/s) at the eight measuring points, which were selected
from the flume’s critical flow region as seen in Fig. 1.
4. Results and Discussion
In this study, a 3 inch Parshall flume (7.62 cm throat width)
and 26 Modified Venturi flumes, with modified dimensions of

Table 1. Dimensions of Flumes used in the Present Study

Flume Dimensions Flume Dimensions
Flume Number Flume Number
W (cm) F (cm) K (cm) W (cm) F (cm) K (cm)
F.1 5.00 10 2.50 F.15 7.62 15 7.62
F.2 5.00 10 5.00 F.16 7.62 20 2.50
F.3 5.00 10 7.62 F.17 7.62 20 5.00
F.4 5.00 15 2.50 F.18 7.62 20 7.62
F.5 5.00 15 5.00 F.19 10.0 10 2.50
F.6 5.00 15 7.62 F.20 10.0 10 5.00
F.7 5.00 20 2.50 F.21 10.0 10 7.62
F.8 5.00 20 5.00 F.22 10.0 15 2.50
F.9 5.00 20 7.62 F.23 10.0 15 5.00
F.10 7.62 10 2.50 F.24 10.0 15 7.62
F.11 7.62 10 5.00 F.25 10.0 20 2.50
F.12 7.62 10 7.62 F.26 10.0 20 5.00
*F.13 7.62 15 2.50 F.27 10.0 20 7.62
F.14 7.62 15 5.00
*Dimensions of F. 13 are taken from standard 3 inch Parshall flume.

Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016 − 945 −

 O. Faruk Dursun
Fig. 3. Water Surface Elevations at Measuring Points: (a) For 5 cm
Throat Widths, (b) For 7.62 cm Throat Widths, (c) For 10
cm Throat Widths
each throat widths (W), throat lengths (F) and sill heights (K)
were tested. In total, 108 experiments were conducted by taking
into consideration four unit discharges for 27 flumes.
The variations of the water depth as a function of unit
discharges for different throat widths (W) along the channel are
given in Figs. 3(a-c). As shown in Figs. 3(a-c), different water
levels occurred for different discharge and throat widths. A
transition from subcritical to supercritical flow occurred between
4 and 5 measuring points and supercritical flow occurred at the
number eight measuring point in all experiments. A positive
agreement is observed between all the water surface profiles of
experiments shown in Figs. 3(a-c).
− 946 −
Figure 3(a) was plotted for flume numbers one to nine (i.e., F.1
to F.9) that had 5cm throat widths. The water depths at
measuring points one to four varied between 20 and 50 cm. As
shown in Fig. 3(a), the water levels were plotted for three flow
rates (i.e., 10, 20 and 30 L/s). The water depths for Q=40 L/s
could not be measured because the water level raised and spilled
from the channel.
Figure 3(b) shows the variation of the water depths in the
channel for flume numbers 10 to 18 (i.e., F.10 - F.18) that had
7.62 cm throat widths. The water depths at the measuring points
one to four were changed to 15 to 50 cm.
Figure 3(c) illustrates the variation of the water depths in the
channel for flume numbers 19 to 27 (i.e., F.19 - F.27) that had 10
cm throat widths. The water depths at the measuring points one
to four were changed 15 to 45 cm for this figure.
As a result, it is stated that the water depths increase when the
unit discharge is increased and the throat width of the flume is
decreased (Fig. 3(a-c)).
The Parshall flume accelerates flow though a contraction of both
the parallel sidewalls and a drop in the floor at the flume throat
(USBR 2013). Thus, a smooth transition from subcritical to
supercritical flow at the intake of the throat section and a transition
from supercritical to subcritical flow at the downstream of the
flume occurred. In the meantime, turbulent flow occurs and air
bubbles entrain into the water. In this study, a hydraulic jump was
observed at the end of the flumes. The hydraulic jump was caused
by free-surface turbulence and concurrently air bubbles occurred.
Thus, the oxygen transfer resulted in the channel.
Figure 4(a) shows the flumes variation for aeration efficiency
(E20) with 5 cm throat widths tested in the current study (i.e., F.1 -
F.9). It is clear that the flumes have an ability to increase oxygen
content in the water body.
As shown in Fig. 4(b), the aeration rates (E20) changes between
0.04-0.18 for flumes that have 7.62 cm throat widths (i.e. F.10 - F.18).
As shown in Fig. 4(c), the aeration rates (E20) changes between
0.03-0.17 for flumes that have 10 cm throat widths (i.e. F.19 - F.27).
It is evident from the results that the aeration efficiency increases
when the throat width is decreased (see Fig. 4(a-c)). The primary
reason for this is the increase in the velocity at before the hydraulic
jump. In other words, increasing the velocity causes an increase in
the dissolved oxygen concentration. At the same time, decreasing
the throat width causes a rise in the water level. On the other hand,
when the throat length is increased, the aeration efficiency
increases. This is because an increase in the throat length
contributes to the occurrence of the hydraulic jump. The results
indicate that the oxygen transfer efficiency increases as the unit
discharge increases, as shown in Tables 2-4. As presented in Table
2, the maximum value of E20 is obtained for flume number seven,
which has 5 cm throat width, 20 cm throat length, and 2.5 cm sill
height. The reason for this is that the narrow and long throat width
and low sill height accelerates the flow and causes a better
hydraulic jump than others. In the current study, the mean E20 value
was obtained as approximately 0.12.
In the Fig. 5; Curve 1, Curve 2 and Curve 3 shows the data
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 An Experimental Investigation of the Aeration Performance of Parshall Flume and Venturi Flumes
Fig. 4. Aeration Efficiencies Respect to Throat Widths: (a) For 5 cm Throat Widths, (b) For 7.62 cm Throats Widths, (c) For 10 cm Throat
Widths
Fig. 5. Comparison of the Present Study Data with Literature
range between the minimum and maximum E20 values of present
study, Baylar et al. (2007), and Kaya and Emiroglu (2010)
respectively.
The E20 values of the present study are lower than those of
Kaya and Emiroglu (2010) and Baylar et al. (2007) as shown in
Fig. 5. The reason for this is that both studies in the literature
Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016
have high drop heights. Drop heights in these studies (i.e.,
studies of Kaya and Emiroglu (2010) and Baylar et al. (2007))
change between 1.25 to 2.5 m. Stepped and baffled block chutes
were used in these studies. In the present study, drop heights at
the flumes throat section were in between 0.025 and 0.075 m. It
can be seen that drop heights at the present study are quite lower
than those of the studies in the literature. In addition to this,
although chute angles were 15 to 40 degrees in literature studies,
chute angle was zero in the present study. In practice most
channel slopes are quite low (e.g., 0.001, 0.0004). For these
reasons, E20 values of the present study are lower than those of
the studies in literature. It is concluded that the aeration
performance of the Parshall flume and Modified Venturi flumes
can be used for channels without drops. In the current study, the
mean and maximum E20 values were obtained as approximately
0.12 and 0.26 respectively. These values are not high aeration
efficiency values. More studies may be done to obtain the best
oxygenation values for horizontal channel for example; using
different sudden contraction systems, using curved channels or
using different baffle blocks.
As shown in Fig. 5, E20 values decrease while the unit discharge
increases for stepped chutes and baffle blocks. However, in the
present study, E20 values increase when the unit discharge
increases. The reason is explained as follows: in stepped chutes,
increasing the unit discharge causes a skimming flow regime,
− 947 −
 O. Faruk Dursun

Table 2. Aeration Data of Flumes used in the Present Study (W = 5 cm)

Flume Number q (L/s.m) T (C) Cu (mg/L) Cd (mg/L) Cs (mg/L) r (−) E (−) f (−) E20 (−)
25 16 0.07 0.90 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.10
F. 1 50 16 0.07 0.83 8.73 1.10 0.09 0.92 0.10
75 16 0.07 0.98 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.11
25 16 0.13 0.77 8.73 1.08 0.07 0.92 0.08
F. 2 50 16 0.13 0.53 8.73 1.05 0.05 0.92 0.05
75 16 0.13 0.81 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
25 16 1.20 2.12 8.83 1.14 0.12 0.91 0.13
F. 3 50 16 1.20 2.00 8.83 1.12 0.10 0.91 0.11
75 16 1.20 2.11 8.83 1.14 0.12 0.91 0.13
25 16 0.06 0.78 8.83 1.09 0.08 0.91 0.09
F. 4 50 16 0.06 0.65 8.83 1.07 0.07 0.91 0.07
75 16 0.06 0.56 8.83 1.06 0.06 0.91 0.06
25 16 2.03 3.20 8.73 1.21 0.17 0.92 0.19
F. 5 50 16 2.03 2.76 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
75 16 2.03 3.05 8.73 1.18 0.15 0.92 0.16
25 16 1.68 2.64 8.73 1.16 0.14 0.92 0.15
F. 6 50 16 1.68 2.48 8.73 1.13 0.11 0.92 0.12
75 16 1.68 2.38 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.11
25 16 3.88 4.68 8.73 1.20 0.16 0.92 0.18
F. 7 50 16 3.88 4.78 8.73 1.23 0.19 0.92 0.20
75 16 3.88 5.04 8.73 1.31 0.24 0.92 0.26
25 16 1.94 2.69 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
F. 8 50 16 1.94 2.69 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
75 16 1.94 2.77 8.73 1.14 0.12 0.92 0.13
25 16 1.52 2.9 8.73 1.24 0.19 0.92 0.21
F. 9 50 16 1.52 2.44 8.73 1.15 0.13 0.92 0.14
75 16 1.52 2.45 8.73 1.15 0.13 0.92 0.14

Table 3. Aeration Data of Flumes used in Present Studies (W = 7.62 cm)

Flume Number q (l/s.m) T (C) Cu (mg/l) Cd (mg/l) Cs (mg/l) r E f E20
25 16 0.05 0.33 8.73 1.03 0.03 0.92 0.04
50 16 0.05 0.46 8.73 1.05 0.05 0.92 0.05
F. 10
75 16 0.05 0.56 8.73 1.06 0.06 0.92 0.06
100 16 0.05 0.92 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.11
25 16 1.71 2.06 8.73 1.05 0.05 0.92 0.05
50 16 1.71 2.48 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
F. 11
75 16 1.71 2.73 8.73 1.17 0.15 0.92 0.16
100 16 1.71 2.36 8.73 1.10 0.09 0.92 0.10
25 16 3.72 4.26 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
50 16 3.72 3.94 8.73 1.05 0.04 0.92 0.05
F. 12
75 16 3.72 4.02 8.73 1.06 0.06 0.92 0.07
100 16 3.72 4.54 8.73 1.20 0.16 0.92 0.18
25 16 2.20 2.63 8.73 1.07 0.07 0.92 0.07
50 16 2.20 2.92 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
F. 13
75 16 2.20 3.15 8.73 1.17 0.15 0.92 0.16
100 16 2.20 2.84 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.11
25 16 0.66 1.36 8.73 1.09 0.09 0.92 0.09
50 16 0.66 1.55 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
F. 14
75 16 0.66 1.84 8.73 1.17 0.15 0.92 0.16
100 16 0.66 1.55 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
25 16 1.11 1.96 8.73 1.13 0.11 0.92 0.12
50 16 1.11 1.91 8.73 1.12 0.10 0.92 0.11
F. 15
75 16 1.11 2.08 8.73 1.15 0.13 0.92 0.14
100 16 1.11 1.81 8.73 1.10 0.09 0.92 0.10
100 16 2.27 3.08 8.73 1.14 0.13 0.92 0.14

− 948 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 An Experimental Investigation of the Aeration Performance of Parshall Flume and Venturi Flumes

Table 3. (continued)
Flume Number q (l/s.m) T (C) Cu (mg/l) Cd (mg/l) Cs (mg/l) r E f E20
25 16 0.07 0.50 8.73 1.05 0.05 0.92 0.05
50 16 0.07 0.37 8.73 1.04 0.03 0.92 0.04
F. 16
75 16 0.07 0.43 8.73 1.04 0.04 0.92 0.05
100 16 0.07 1.31 8.73 1.17 0.14 0.92 0.16
25 16 2.27 2.64 8.73 1.06 0.06 0.92 0.06
F. 17 50 16 2.27 2.97 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
75 16 2.27 3.26 8.73 1.18 0.15 0.92 0.17
25 16 1.30 2.00 8.73 1.10 0.09 0.92 0.10
50 16 1.30 1.69 8.73 1.06 0.05 0.92 0.06
F. 18
75 16 1.30 1.77 8.73 1.07 0.06 0.92 0.07
100 16 1.30 2.30 8.73 1.16 0.13 0.92 0.15

Table 4. Aeration Data of Flumes used in Present Studies (W = 10 cm)

q T Cu Cd Cs
Flume Number r E f E20
(l/s.m) (C) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
25 16 1.55 1.86 8.73 1.05 0.04 0.92 0.05
50 16 1.55 2.14 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
F. 19
75 16 1.55 2.51 8.73 1.15 0.13 0.92 0.14
100 16 1.55 2.11 8.73 1.08 0.08 0.92 0.08
25 16 2.08 2.51 8.73 1.07 0.06 0.92 0.07
50 16 2.08 2.49 8.73 1.07 0.06 0.92 0.07
F. 20
75 16 2.08 2.85 8.73 1.13 0.12 0.92 0.13
100 16 2.08 2.84 8.73 1.13 0.11 0.92 0.12
25 16 0.85 1.51 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
50 16 0.85 1.52 8.73 1.09 0.09 0.92 0.09
F. 21
75 16 0.85 1.65 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.11
100 16 0.85 1.47 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
25 16 0.19 0.41 8.73 1.03 0.03 0.92 0.03
50 16 0.19 0.91 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
F. 22
75 16 0.19 1.38 8.73 1.16 0.14 0.92 0.15
100 16 0.19 0.90 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
25 16 1.98 2.37 8.73 1.06 0.06 0.92 0.06
50 16 1.98 2.26 8.73 1.04 0.04 0.92 0.05
F. 23
75 16 1.98 2.56 8.73 1.09 0.09 0.92 0.09
100 16 1.98 2.54 8.73 1.09 0.08 0.92 0.09
25 16 2.37 2.68 8.73 1.05 0.05 0.92 0.05
50 16 2.37 3.16 8.73 1.14 0.12 0.92 0.13
F. 24
75 16 2.37 3.47 8.73 1.21 0.17 0.92 0.19
100 16 2.37 3.35 8.73 1.18 0.15 0.92 0.17
25 16 1.19 1.46 8.73 1.04 0.04 0.92 0.04
50 16 1.19 2.30 8.73 1.17 0.15 0.92 0.16
F. 25
75 16 1.19 2.69 8.73 1.25 0.20 0.92 0.17
100 16 1.19 1.86 8.73 1.10 0.09 0.92 0.10
25 16 1.20 1.52 8.73 1.04 0.04 0.92 0.05
50 16 1.20 1.45 8.73 1.03 0.03 0.92 0.04
F. 26
75 16 1.20 1.64 8.73 1.06 0.06 0.92 0.06
100 16 1.20 2.00 8.73 1.12 0.11 0.92 0.12
25 16 0.99 1.52 8.73 1.07 0.07 0.92 0.07
50 16 0.99 1.78 8.73 1.11 0.10 0.92 0.11
F. 27
75 16 0.99 1.96 8.73 1.14 0.13 0.92 0.14
100 16 0.99 1.52 8.73 1.07 0.07 0.92 0.07

Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016 − 949 −

 O. Faruk Dursun
and thus the values of E20 decrease. In baffled chutes, flow depth
rises on the blocks when increasing the unit discharge. The amount
of air bubbles in the flow decreases, hence the values of E20 also
decreases. In flumes, more turbulence was observed in all
experiments when increasing the unit discharge. In other words, the
values of E20 increased when increasing the unit discharge.
5. Conclusions
Measuring discharge using the 3 inch Parshall flume has been
studied experimentally by a number of investigators. But there is
a lack of knowledge on the Parshall flumes’ oxygen transfer
efficiency. In this study, the Parshall flume and Modified Venturi
flumes modified from this Parshall flume oxygen transfer
efficiency was investigated, and in particular, the effect of varying
throat width, throat length, and sill height. Based on the findings
of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The oxygen transfer efficiency increases as the unit dis-
charge increases.
• The aeration efficiency increases when the throat width is
decreased.
• The aeration efficiency increases when the throat length is
increased.
• The maximum value of E20 is obtained for flume number
seven.
• In the current study, the mean E20 value was obtained as
approximately 0.12
• The results indicate that Parshall flume and Modified Ven-
turi flumes proposed in this study can be used in order to
increase oxygen content in a water body for channels having
zero or significantly low slopes.
• Aeration values obtained in this study is not the best results
for horizontal channels. More studies on aeration for hori-
zontal channels can be done.
References
ASTM D1941 (2013). Standart test method for open channel flow
measurement of water with the Parshall Flume.
Baylar, A., Hanbay D., and Ozpolat E., (2007). “Modeling aeration
efficiency of stepped cascades by using ANFIS.” CLEAN - Soil, Air,
Water, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 186-192, DOI: 10.1002/clen.200700019.
Baylar, A., Unsal, M., and Ozkan, F. (2011). “The effect of flow patterns
and energy dissipation over stepped chutes on aeration efficiency.”
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 1329-1334,
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-011-1360-0.
Chanson, H. (1995). “Predicting oxygen content downstream of weirs,
spillways and waterways.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. Water, Marit. and
Energy, London, Vol. 112, No. March, pp. 20-30.
Chanson, H. and Toombes, L. (2002). “Experimental study of gas-liquid
interfacial properties in a stepped cascade flow.” Envir. Fluid Mech.,
Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 241-263, DOI: 10.1023/A:1019884101405.
Emiroglu, M. E. and Baylar, A. (2003). “An investigation of effect of
stepped chutes with end sill on aeration Performance.” Water Qual.
Res. J. Can., Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 527-539.
Emiroglu, M. E. and Baylar, A. (2006). “Self-Aeration in smooth and
− 950 −
stepped chutes.” International Journal of Science and Technology,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 105-113.
Gulliver, J. S., Thene, J. R., and Rindels, A. J. (1990). “Indexing gas
transfer in self-aerated flows.” J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 116, No.
3, pp. 503-523, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1990)116:3(503).
Heiner, B. and Barfuss, S. L. (2011). “Parshall flume discharge corrections:
Wall staff Gauge and centerline measurements.” Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering ASCE, Vol. 137, No. 12, pp. 779-94,
10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000355.
Heiner, B. J., Barfuss, S. L., and Johnson M. C. (2011). “Flow rate sensitivity
due to parshall flume staff gauge location and entrance wing wall
configuration.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
Vol. 137, No. 2, ASCE.
Hirt, C. W. and Williams, K. A. (1994). FLOW-3D Prediction for free
discharge and submerged parshall flumes, Flow Science Technical
Note, FSI-94-TN40.
International Standards Organization (1992). Measurement of liquid
flow in open channels, Parshall and SANIIRI Flumes. ISO 9826:1992.
Kaya, N. and Emiroglu, M. E. (2010). “Study of oxygen transfer efficiency at
baffled chutes.” Water Management, pp. 1-10.
Kim, S., Lee, H., and Oh, B. (2010). “Investigation on application of parshall
flume for flow measurement of low-flow season in Korea.”
Measurement Science Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, DOI: 2010. 10.2478/
v10048-010-0019-1.
McGhee, T. J. (1991). Water supply and sewerage, McGraw-Hill
International Editions, (6th ed.)
Parshall, R. L. (1926). “The improved venturi flume.” Transactions,
Vol. 89, pp. 841-851.
Parshall, R. L. (1936). The Parshall measuring flume, Bull. No. 423,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Colorado Agricultural College,
FortCollins, Colo.
Toombes, L. and Chanson, H. (2000). “Air-water flow and gas transfer
at aeration cascades: a comparative study of smooth and stepped
chutes.” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hydraulics of
Stepped Spillways, Zurich, Switzerland, March, pp. 22-24, pp. 77-84.
US Bureau of Reclamation USBR (2001). Water measurement manual,
3rd Ed., U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Denver.
USBR Water Measurement Manual - Chapter 8 - FLUMES, Section 10.
Parshall Flumes. Usbr.gov. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
Wilhelms, S. C., Gulliver, J. S., and Parkhill, K. (1992). Re-aeration at
low-head hydraulic structures, Technical Report HL-91, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
Baylar, A. and Emiroglu, M. E. (2003). “Study of aeration efficiency at
stepped channels.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. Water & Marit. Eng., Vol.
156, No. WM3, pp. 257-263, DOI: 10.1680/wame.2003.156.3.257.
Ervine, D. A. (1998). “Air entrainment in hydraulic structures: A review.”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. Water, Marit. and Energy, London, Vol. 130,
No. September, pp. 142-153, DOI: 10.1680/iwtme.1998.30973.
Peck, H. (1998). “Submerged flows in parshall flumes. in proceeding,
national conference.” Hydraulic Division of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE, Colorado Springs, Colorado, pp. 1155-1160.
Tebbutt, T. H. Y., Essery, I. T. S., and Rasaratnam, S. K. (1977). “Reaeration
performance of stepped cascades.” Journal of the Institution of
Water Engineering Science, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 285-297.
Thornton, C., I., Smith, B., A., Abt, S., R., and Robeson, M., D. (2009).
“Supercritical flow measurement using a small parshall flume.” Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 5, ASCE,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000014.
USBR (1997). Water measurement manual, 3rd ed. Denver, Colorado,
US Department of the Interior, pp. 8.40-8.60.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering