See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270851184

Design of Open‐Channel‐Contraction Tranisitions

Article  in  Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · May 1994

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1994)120:3(660)

CITATIONS READS

4 731

2 authors, including:

Prabhata K. Swamee
Institute of Technology and Management
85 PUBLICATIONS   1,709 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stream-flow depletion due to goundwater pumping View project

Groundwater flow to constant-head wells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Prabhata K. Swamee on 20 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 D E S I G N OF O P E N - C H A N N E L - C O N T R A C T I O N
TRANISITIONS

By Prabhata K. Swamee ~ and Bharat C. Basak2

INTRODUCTION

Contracting transitions are essential for many hydraulic structures such

as aqueducts, superpassages, siphons, falls, and headworks regulators, where
fluming is done for reasons of economy. In such structures, usually a channel
of trapezoidal or rectangular cross section is connected to a narrower channel
of rectangular cross section. The design of such a contraction transition in
subcritical flow involves evaluation of bed width, side slope, and bed-ele-
vation profiles. Because the existing methods of transition design are ar-
bitrary as no attention is paid to minimize the head loss, there is a rationale
for developing optimal-transition profiles for subcritical-contraction tran-
sitions.

PRESENT DESIGN PRACTICE

A general contraction-transition design problem involves designing a tran-
sition from a trapezoidal channel of bed width bo and side slope mo to a
contracted-rectangular channel of bed width bz. This transition has to be
accomplished in a length L (see Fig. 1). A rectangular contraction is a
limiting case when mo = 0. A review of the literature reveals that no
justifiable transition shape has yet been developed. It is a c o m m o n practice
to adopt the following elliptical quadrant for a bed-width profile:
b : bo + (bo - bL)[~(2 - 6)] 0.5 (1)
in which b = bed width; and ~ = x / L , wherein x = distance from inlet of
transition. The following straight-tapering simple-contraction transition is
also used for low-velocity small structures:
b = bo - (bo - bL)~ (2)
Varshney et al. (1988) recommended the Hartley et al. (1940) expansion-
transition profile for contraction transitions
b = [bE' + (bz I - bo'){] -1 (3)

Vittal and Chiranjeevi (1983) recommended the following bed-width and

side-slope profiles developed for expansion transitions:
b = bo + (bL -- bo){[1 - (1 - l~)~176 (4a)
and
Iprof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667, India.
2Asst. Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Bangladesh Inst. of Tech., Ghazipur, Dhaka 1700,
Bangladesh.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review and possible publication
on November 19, 1992. This technical note is part of the Journal oflrrigation and
Drainage Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, May/June, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9437/
94/0003-0660/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Technical note No. 5142.
660
 I
mo Yo

(a)

bo FLOW ~ b
I
bL

t
~ x L

i I so
Z l"u

FIG. 1. Definition: (a) Plan, (b) Elevation

m = rno(1 - ~)0.5 (4b)

in which m = side slope. Denoting z to be the bed elevation with respect
to the inlet-bed level, the following linear profile is generally adopted for
the bed elevation.
z = z,.~ (5)
in which zL = outlet-bed level, which is obtained by the following equation
based on the assumption of no head loss in the transition and the inlet and
the outlet-flow depths being equal:
Q2
ZL ~- 2 2 2
(b 2o - b ~_) (6)
2gb ob LY o
in which Q = discharge; Yo = inlet depth; and g = gravitational acceler-
ation.

ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The elementary head loss dhL, incurred in the elementary length dx, is
composed of the surface-resistance loss dh: and the form loss dh.,
661
 dhL = dhr + dh m (7)
Denoting the friction factor by f, the elementary surface-resistance loss is
written as

dhr - fQ2p dx (8)

8gA3
in which p = flow perimeter; and A = flow area given by
p = b + 2y(1 + m2)~ (9a)
and
A= y(b + my) (9b)
in which y = flow depth. Combining (8), (9a), and (9b), one finds
dhr fQZ[b + 2y(1 + mZ)~
= 8gy3(b + my)3 dx (10)

In "Friction" the ASCE Task Force on Friction Factors in Open Channels

(1963) suggested the following equation for f:

f = 1.325 In leA + (lla)

in which e = average height of surface roughness; and v = kinematic

viscosity of water. For a fully developed rough-turbulent flow, (lla) reduces
to

f = 1.325 [In (11b)

Using (9a)-(llb) dhI is written as

dh1= QZ[b + 2y(1 +m2)~ ( +2YX/(I_+m2)I] ]
6gy3(b + my)3 In .e[b 12y(b + my) ] z dx (12a)

For uniform flow putting dhs/dx = channel-bed slope So in (12a), one gets
[ yn(b § myn) ] O's
Q = -2.457y,(b + my,,) gSo b + 2 y n ~

[ e b + 2yn~(1 + m2) 1
9In ~ yn(b + my,) _l (12b)

in which y, = normal depth.

Simon (1976) gave a table of form-loss coefficient for an abrupt contrac-
tion of a circular conduit. Using these values the form loss hm was expressed
as

hm = 0.5
[ 1 - (AL]11751 Q2
\A--~o.] J 2gAZ~ (13)

in which Ao and AL = inlet and outlet areas, respectively. Though (13) was
662
obtained for a closed conduit, the same is assumed to be valid for an open-
channel contraction. Considering an elementary length of a contraction
transition and using (13), the elementary form loss was obtained as
Q2dA
dhm 3.4gA 3 (14)

in which dA = elementary increase in flow area. For a trapezoidal open-

channel, (14) takes the form

0.294Q 2 (db dm)

dhm = g(b + my)3y 2 -~x + y ~ dr (15)

in which the elementary increase in the flow depth dy has been neglected.
Using (7), (121), and (15), the head loss in the transition was found as
L~"Q2[b + 2 y ( 1 + m2)~ [ln (s[b + 2y~/(l_ +m2)]~] -2
hL
~ [ 6gy3(b + my) 3 lZy(b + my) ,]]
0.294Q 2 (db Y drn'~"~
g(b + my)3y2 Tx + -g;/ J dx (16)
Using (12) and (15) the governing-differential equation of the gradually
varied flow is given by

~x = dx 6gy3(b + my)3 In 12y(b + my) ]]

0"294Q2 (-~ dm)}/[ 1 Q2(b+2my)]

+ g(b + my)3y 2 - - + y -~x gy3(b + my)3_] (17)
The boundary conditions imposed on the design variables are
b(o) = bo (18a)

(.;) :o (18b)
(o)
m(0) = mo (18c)
z(0) = 0 (18t0

-,oo (18e)
(o)
b(L) = bL (18/)

:0 (18g)
(L)
m(L) = 0 (18h)
and
663
 dz) = - SoL (18i)
-~X ( L )

in which Soo and SoL = upstream and downstream channel-bed slopes,

respectively. Furthermore, there is no outlet condition imposed on z. The
state variable y at the inlet section y(0) = the normal depth upstream of
the transition, which can be obtained by substituting So = Soo, and m =
mo in (12b). Thus
Q = -2.457y(0)[b + moy(O)]
{ y__(O)[b+ m__oy(O)l ~o.5 In { e b + 2 y ( 0 ) X / ( l + m 2 o ) ~ (19)
9 gS~176+ 2y(0)X/(1 + m2)J ]-2 y(0)[b + moy(O)l J
The transition design, thus, boils down to the problem of minimization
of hL as given by (16); subjected to the differential constraint (17) and the
equality constraints (18)-(19). This is an optimal-control problem (Sage and
White 1977).
The problem formulated in this paper is similar to one worked out by
Swamee and Basak (1993) on expansion-transition design. By adopting the
same numerical algorithm for a given set of data the optimal-contraction-
transition profile can be obtained.

OPTIMAL-TRANSITION PROFILES

Varying the following parameters in the practical ranges described, 5,184

optimal transitions were designed:

O
0.1 -< b ~ o ~ <- 2.0 (20a)

bL
0.3 -< boo -< 0.8 (20b)

L
2.0 -< bo -< 8.0 (20c)

10 -4 <- Soo; SoL <-- 10 -2 (20d)

0.5 -< mo <- 3.5 (20e)

10-6 < ~ ~ 10-5 (20f)

bo
An inspection of these profiles revealed that there is little variation be-
tween the various profiles and unique equations could be obtained for bed
width, and side-slope profiles.
Considering arbitrary values of the constants kl, k2, and k 3 in the following
equation:

b = bo - (bo - bc) kl + 1 (21)

at ~i with i = 0 at the inlet to 20 at the outlet, and comparing the so obtained

664
bed width as ba with the bed width obtained by the numerical algorithm
be;, the average percentage error E was obtained as

100 ~x by,- - be,- (22)

E - 5,184 • 21 .= i=o

Varying kl, k2, and k3 by the steepest-descent method (Wilde and Beightler
1967), E was minimized to yield kl = 1.41; k2 = 1.23; and k3 = 0.924.
Thus (21) reduces to

b = bo - (bo - bL) 1.41 + 1 (23)

The maximum error involved in the use of (23) is 1.51%. Adopting a similar
process, the equation of the optimal side-slope profile was obtained as

0 '1~ 9 [ I I i [ ) I 1 1

O-

VITTAL AND
CHIRAN.J EEVI
( 1983 )

0,!

PRESENT STUDY

hL
bo

0.:

0,:

0 I. .... I I I I I .,I I , ,I I
0 0.2 0.4 0-6 0-8 1.0 1-2 1-" 1"6 '/'8
Q
b~J~
FIG. 2. Head-Loss Comparison for Rectangular Transition

665
 0'5

0"~

LINEAR
0"3
HARTLEYet.
(1940)
EL

hL
bo "PRESENT STUDY
0.2

0'1

0V I I 1 I I I I I I
0 0'2 0.a 0'6 0'8 1'0 1.2 1'4 1-6 1'8 2,0
Q

FIG. 3. Head-Loss Comparison for Trapezoidal Transition

m = too(1 - f;1.52) (24)

The maximum error involved in the use of (24) is 1.23%. It was found that
barring Soo, bL/bo, and too, no other parameter has significant effect on ZL
for which the following implicit equation having a maximum error of 7.82%
has been obtained:

~L = 0.6 exp(0.41mo) \-~L] $2~176+ ~

- 173 exp(0.34mo) \b--~L/ S~~176

+ ~ 1o- (25)

in which ~L = zc/L. The bed-elevation profiles are fitted to the following

equations:
666
z L{[ + 1,45~L~1-5] -1~

+ ~L + SOL(1 - {) ~L -> 0 (26a)

and

z= - L {[Soo~-1.17~L{l2] -10

+ [ -EL - SOL(1 - 6) ; EL -<0 (26b)

The maximum error involved in the use of (26) are 0.92% and 2.89%,
respectively.

PERFORMANCE OF TRANSITION PROFILES

The data taken for comparing the performance of the optimal transition
with the other transitions are bL/bo = 0.5; L/bo = 4.0; (Soo, SoL) = 0.005;
mo = 2: and e/bo = 10 -5. The nondimensional-discharge parameter
Q / ( b 2 ~ o ) was varied from 0 to 2 to calculate the nondimensional head
loss hL/bo from (16) using Simpson's rule. Fig. 2 depicts the head loss for
a rectangular transition, whereas Fig. 3 shows the head loss for a trapezoidal
transition. A perusal of Figs. 2 - 3 reveals that as the nondimensional dis-
charge is increased, the losses of the other transition profiles gradually
increase from the optimal head loss. Provision of smooth inlet and outlet
(18b) and (18g) in the optimal transition eliminates the chances of eddy
formation at the inlet and separation at the outlet, whereas no such provision
exists in the other transition profiles. Thus, the actual losses in the other
transition profiles are much more than indicated by Figs. 2-3.

CONCLUSIONS
A methodology for the design of subcritical-contraction transition has
been developed. Using the proposed methodology, empirical equations for
bed width, side slope, and bed-elevation profiles have been obtained. The
use of these equations for the transition design yields less head loss than
the existing methods.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
ASCE Task Force on Friction in Open Channels. (1963). "Friction factors in open
channels." J. Hydr. Engrg. Div., 89(2), 97-143.
Hartley, G. E., Jain, J. P., and Bhattacharya, A. P. (1940). "Report on the model
experiments of ruining of bridges on Purwa branch." Tech. Memo. 9, United
Provinces Irrigation Res. Inst., Lucknow (now at Roorkee), India, 94-110.
Sage, A. P., and White, C. C. (1977). Optimum systems control, 2nd Ed., Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 310-325.
Simon, A. L. (1976). Practical hydraulics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
N.Y., 59-63.
Swamee, P. K., and Basak, B. C. (1993). "Comprehensive open channel expansion
transition design." J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 119(1), 1-17.
Varshney, R. S., Gupta, S. C., and Gupta, R. L. 1988). Theory and design of
irrigation structures, Vol. 2. Nemchand and Bros., Roorkee, India, 85-98.
667
Vittal, N., and Chiranjeevi, V. V. (1983). " O p e n channel transitions: rational method
of design." J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 109(1), 99-115.
Wilde, D. J., and Beightler, C. S. (1967). Foundations of optimization. Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 288-298.

A P P E N D I X II, NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A : flow area;
b = b e d width;
E = average-percentage error;
f = friction factor;
g = gravitational a c c e l e r a t i o n ;
hf = friction loss;
hL = h e a d loss;
h,~ = f o r m loss;
kl-k3 = constants;
L = transition length;
m = side slope;
p = flow p e r i m e t e r ;
Q = discharge;
So = bed slope;
x = distance f r o m inlet;
y = flow d e p t h ;
z = bed elevation;
= a v e r a g e height of surface r o u g h n e s s ;
= z/L;
v = k i n e m a t i c viscosity; and
= x/L.

Suffixes
c = computed;
f = fitted;
i = index;
L = outlet section;
n = u n i f o r m flow; and
o = inlet section.

668

View publication stats