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

net/publication/254245008

Hydraulic design aspects for swirling flow at vertical drop shaft spillways

Article  in  ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · June 2012

DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2007.10514885

CITATIONS READS

3 1,630

3 authors, including:

V. V. Bhosekar P. B. Deolalikar
Central Water and Power Research Station 26 PUBLICATIONS   538 CITATIONS   
31 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

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

Dhauliganga H.E.Project, Uttarakhand View project

CFD modelling of Hydraulic Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by V. V. Bhosekar on 15 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECTS FOR SWIRLING FLOW AT VERTICAL DROP SHAFT

SPILLWAYS

Mrs. V.V. Bhosekar P.B. Deolalikar Mrs. M.I. Sridevi

Chief Research Officer Joint Director Assistant Research Officer
Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune – 411 024, India
E-mail: vvbhosekar@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT

Vertical drop shaft spillways are generally provided on either banks of the reservoir. It is a
hydraulically efficient way to convey water as a swirling flow down vertical drop shaft. The flow
adheres to the shaft wall along its entire length and wall friction is effective in reducing the vertical fall
of velocities. Generally, vortex drops are provided for sewers. However, in the recent times it is
increasingly adopted for heights varying from a few metres up to 200 m and the total discharge of the
order of 2000 cumec. Extensive aeration/de-aeration arrangements would be necessary along the
vertical shaft as well as at the junction of vertical shaft and horizontal tunnel so that air-bursting
phenomenon could be avoided. This paper discusses the hydraulics of the vortex drop shaft spillway
and also the experience gained while evolving the hydraulic design including a horizontal air groove in
the shaft.

INTRODUCTION

There are many types of spillways such as (i) ogee spillway (ii) side channel spillway
(iii) chute spillway and (iv) tunnel spillway. In case of earth and rock fill dam, it is very difficult
to accommodate the spillway in a river gorge. In such situations horizontal / sloping tunnel
spillways with intake structure or vertical drop shafts serving as intake are generally adopted.
The main components of the drop shaft spillways are as below and shown in Figure 1:

i. Intake structure
ii. Vertical drop shafts
iii. Outlet tunnel and dissipator.

The control structure for the intake may be in the form of (i) overflow crest (ii) vertical or
orifice entrance (iii) morning glory entrance or (iv) side channel crest. The morning glory
entrance type intake is provided for low to medium head spillways. Hydraulic design of
morning glory spillways has been well documented and is therefore not discussed here.

Throat

Approach Air Shaft

Channel
Drop
Tangential Shaft
Intake

Deaeration Outlet
Chamber Tunnel

Figure 1: A Typical Drop Shaft, IAHR (1987)

 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

In swirling flow intakes, the water swirls down a vertical drop shaft. The vortex flow
intake imparts an angular motion to the flow which then enters the drop shaft as a swirling
annular jet with an air core at the center of the drop shaft. The air core area initially
decreases and then increases along the drop shaft, thereby forming a throat. Aeration pipes
are often provided at the top of vertical shaft to keep the air-core ventilated. As the flow
passes down the drop shaft, its vertical velocity component increases and the flow direction
gradually approaches the vertical. The flow continues to hug the shaft wall thereby resulting
in considerable dissipation of flow energy.

TYPES OF VORTEX FLOW INTAKES

Intake configuration controls both the flow depth in the approach channel and the
drop shaft diameter required to pass the design flow with a minimum permissible air-core
area. Several configurations mentioned below and shown in Figure 2 are used to produce
swirling flows.

(a) Circular: The side of the intake curl towards the drop shaft with horizontal floor.
This intake is used for generating supercritical approach flows.

(b) Scroll : The sides of the intake curl toward the drop shaft with horizontal floor,
This intake is used for generating supercritical approach flow

(c) Spiral: The sides of the intake curl towards the drop shaft and has a sloping floor.

(d) Tangential: The sides of the intake are straight and make an eccentric approach
to the shaft. The intake has a sloping floor.

(e) Siphonic:The intake consists of a series of siphons located around the entrance
to a drop shaft.

Circular Scroll
Siphonic

Spiral Tangential

Figure 2: Different configurations of Swirling Devices, Jain et. al (1987)

The vortex drop shafts have mainly been used in sewer network with extensive
arrangement for de-aeration (Dhalin, 1982). However, with increase in the knowledge of the
vortex drop behaviour, these are being utilized efficiently for drop heights varying from a few
meters to about 200 m and discharges of the order of 2000 cumec in spillway structures.
The Russians have perfected this technique and used them in Rogun, Nurek, Chauvak,
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

Kambarata and Sangtuda hydroelectric projects. However, scanty literature is available

regarding the experience of their operation, problems faced and remedial measures taken.

Generally, intakes with subcritical flow regime are used for sewers. However, for
spillways, the approaching flow is always supercritical. Tangential type of intake was
proposed for the shaft spillway of Tehri H.E. Project. Therefore, the hydraulics of this type is
discussed in detail as follows:

The geometry of tangential intake and the flow in it are shown in Figure 3. There
exist three possible flow control sections; one at the upstream end of the intake (section 1),
the second at the downstream end (section 2) of the intake and third at the throat (section 3).

Figure 3: Details of Tangential Intake, IAHR (1987)

DEPTH-DISCHARGE RELATION

For small flows, section 1 acts as the control, so that flows in the approach channel
and the tangential intake are critical and super-critical, respectively. For large discharges,
the first control is drowned by the second control which now governs the flow depth, so that
flows in both the approach channel and the tangential intake are subcritical. The flow depth
at the junction of the intake with the drop shaft is critical for large flow depths. The specific
energy of the flow at the junction, Ej is given by,

3  (Q / e ) 
2 1/ 3

Ej =   ( cos β )2 / 3 ….(1)
2  g 
where,

Q = discharge
e = intake width at the junction
β = slope of the transition floor
g = gravitational acceleration
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

If hydraulic losses in the intake are neglected Ej can be related to the specific energy
of the flow in the approach channel as,
1
y* + = E* ….. (2)
2 y*2
where y* =
y
yc

E* = (B cos β / e ) − Z *
3 2/3

2
Z* = z
yc
2
Q
yc = 3   g
B
Z = drop in the transition floor at the point P.
y = depth of uniform flow in approach channel

3
When E* > , eq. (1) yields two physically real solutions. The solution with the
2
larger magnitude corresponds to sub-critical flow conditions in the approach channel. For
3
E* ≤ , section 1 acts as the control and the flow depth in the approach channel is critical,
2
3
i.e. y* = 1 for E* ≤ ,
2
3
The approach channel depth for the condition E* > , increases with decrease in e
2
and z. Figure 4 shows the specific energy Vs depth curve with the experimental data from
Jain (1984).

Tehri

Figure 4: Specific Energy Vs Depth Curve, Jain (1984)

 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

These guide lines have been formulated by Jain et al (1983) based on the experimental
study in the laboratory. The dimensions of the tangential intake tested were: B=21.9 cm,
e=7.3 cm, D=29.2 cm, β=27.5 0 and θ=16.80. As already mentioned this design was being
used in sewers. However, when the same are utilized for designing the spillway with
discharge of 1840 cumec and discharge intensity of 175 cumec/m, the value of E* was
about 2.4 for e=3.5m and y*=0.5 indicating supercritical flow in the approach channel. The
values are plotted in Fig.4. However, the model studies indicated that hydraulic jump was
forming in the channel due to constriction i.e. there was a transition of supercritical flow to
sub critical flow before it enters the vertical shaft.

FLOW IN SHAFT

Because the flow in the shaft has a free surface, it may be treated as an open
channel flow but with a rotational velocity component. The permissible air-core area at the
throat for the design discharge governs the minimum drop shaft diameter. The size of the
air-core at the throat is determined by treating the throat as another critical or control section
and using the principle that the velocity of streaming over the critical cross section is equal to
that of a small wave in the fluid. The following equation gives the relationship between the
drop shaft radius and the air-core radius at the throat

(1− λ ) = 
3
Q2 e 
1/ 3

  ….. (3)
2λ  g π a Cos β 
3 6 4

2
λ4 = b
a2
where
a = drop shaft radius
b = air-core radius at the throat

A minimum air core area of 25% of the drop shaft area is commonly adopted to
determine drop shaft diameter. The minimum drop shaft diameter which satisfies this
constrains on air-core is given by

1/ 5
 Q 2 max 
D =   ……(4)
 g 

The controlled air core stabilizes the water flow along the wall of a vortex shaft. A
correct design of the shaft should provide not only for the water flow but also for the air flow.
For small discharges, the air entrainment is governed by the local water velocity. For large
discharges, the air supply through vertical shaft is reduced, and pipe-full water flow governs
the air entrainment. Figure 5 shows the comparison of air-core area, calculated using eq. (2)
and the experimental data of Jain et. al (1987).

Calculations were made for assessing the air core diameter using eq.2 for the case
of Tehri Project. The diameter of air core works out to be about 8m as against the observer
value of 5 m in the model. The point is plotted in Fig.5 along with the data of Jain et al
(1987). The last point of Jain et al also shows a deviation from Eq.2. The minimum drop
shaft diameter calculated by Eq.3 works out to be 12.8 m as against 12.0 m provided, thus
corroborating with the guidelines provided by IAHR Design Manual (1987)
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

Eq. (2)

Tehri

Figure 5: Comparison of Air-Core Area, Jain (1987)

Hydraulic model studies are essential for finalizing the design of shaft spillways especially
the ones with high heads and high discharge intensities. The case study for 200 m high
shaft spillway of Tehri H.E. Project, Uttaranchal is discussed in the following paragraphs.

TEHRI H.E. PROJECT, UTTARANCHAL

Tehri H.E. Project comprises of a 260.5 m high earth and rock fill dam across river
Bhagirathi in the state of Uttaranchal and is to generate 2400 MW of power through Stages I
and II. Figure 6 shows the general layout plan of the project. The diversion of fair weather

Figure 6: General Layout Plan of Tehri H.E. Project, Courtesy THDC)

 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

flow during construction was achieved by two 11 m diameter horse-shoe tunnels each on left
and right banks. The spillway has to cater to a design probable maximum discharge of
13,043 cumec involving a drop of the order of 220 m. This calls for an extensive spillway
and energy dissipation system. The open channel spillway provided on the right side of the
dam is able to pass only 5500 cumec. Constraints of space and poor foundation conditions
compelled to opt for an unconventional structure like vertical drop shaft spillway. Besides
this, utilization of two diversion tunnel systems was another consideration.

SPILLWAY SYSTEM

The spillway system comprised of the following:

1. Chute spillway on the right bank consisting of 3 bays of 10.5 m width, separated by 4
m thick piers. The energy dissipator is a stilling basin of length 140 m with a high
end sill. The design maximum discharge is 5500 cumec.

2. Two 12 m diameter 200 m high vertical shafts with morning glory inlets on the right
bank. These shafts join the horizontal diversion tunnels tangentially through a
bottom swirling device, which is the main mechanism for energy dissipation. The
spillway would cater for 3876 cumec

3. Left bank shaft spillway (LBSS) meets the left bank diversion tunnels through a shaft
of 12 m diameter. Swirling devices have been constructed at the bottom to guide the
flow through the horizontal tunnels and energy dissipation. The spillway is designed
to pass a maximum discharge of 3680 cumec. Extensive aeration/de-aeration
arrangement has been provided for safe passage of entrained air. Studies for left
bank shaft spillway are discussed in the following paragraphs.

STUDIES FOR LEFT BANK SHAFT SPILLWAY (LBSS)

Hydraulic model studies were conducted at UPIRI on a comprehensive model and

CWPRS was a consultant. The studies carried out for the original design indicated that the
performance of left bank shaft spillway was not satisfactory. Air entrained in the vertical
shaft was blocked due to the impact of the nappe on the opposite side of the shaft and
consequent rising of water level due to recovery of head. This entrapped air when
pressurized might become quite explosive when suddenly released causing surging and
shock pressures (Hagar, 1990). The nappe of falling water did not adhere to the shaft walls
causing impact. Consequent damage at the bottom of the shaft due to high pressure
variation for small flows when sufficient water column is not available in the shaft were
inevitable (Haindal, 1967). Negative pressures of the order of – 6 m were observed at the
junction along the bottom of the approach tunnel.

In order to improve the performance of the drop shaft, CWPRS had suggested the
alternative of providing a swirling device at the inlet of the vertical shaft. The 10.5 m wide
approach tunnel was constricted to 3.5 m near the vertical shaft entry. The model studies
indicated that there was piling of water in the approach tunnel up to El. 831 m. The swirling
action in the vertical shaft was excellent and the flow was adhering to the vertical shaft upto
the water column at the bottom. In order to reduce the piling of water in the approach tunnel
two alternatives with 4.5 m and 6.5 m width of the opening at the vertical shaft were studied.
Figure 7 shows the cross section of the swirling device suggested by CWPRS. Though the
piling of water reduced considerably, the vortex action in the vertical shaft became weak.
However, this proposal was difficult to implement at the site due to vulnerable rock
conditions at the site, extensive tunneling in this area and large size of the cavern i.e. 3.5 to
6.5 m (w) x 40 m (H) required to be excavated.
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

Figure 7: Cross Section of the Swirling Device

Therefore, it was decided that the original proposal of straight junction be improved
by strengthening the shaft lining at the point of impact and improving the aeration conditions
of the flow. Two alternative designs of the air groove were studied in the model.

Alt I: Vertical Aeration Grooves

Vertical aeration grooves along with pipes in the lining of the drop shafts were
provided above El 770 m. Aeration grooves of the size 5 mX1 m and 5 m X1.5 m with a
reduced width of approach channel to 11 m at the junction of the vertical shaft were studied
on the model. In both the cases, it was observed that the aeration groove were filled up with
water thus defeating the very purpose of aeration grooves as it will not draw or expel any air
till the hydraulic head is exceeded.

Alt II: Horizontal Aeration Grooves

Considering the experience of vertical grooves, CWPRS recommended to conduct

further model studies with horizontal circular grooves all round the periphery of the vertical
shaft at two locations at El 750 m and El 765 m respectively between the junction of level
and the crouch of the water in the vertical shaft. The grooves are 1.5 m high and 1.0 m deep.
These circular grooves inside the concrete lining would be connected to the atmosphere
through independent pipes. Figure 8 shows the details of horizontal air grooves.

Model studies revealed that air was entering through these grooved for reservoir
water level EL 830 m. Although some splashes of water were observed, the grooves did not
get filled up with water. The pressure in the grooves is almost atmospheric indicating that the
grooves have been successful in creating a zone of aeration which being supplied by the
pipe. Apart from this, any trapped air, if gets released under pressure, shall find way out to
the atmosphere through the pipes connected to the circular grooves and shall not have any
damaging effect on the lining.

Thus, the introduction of the horizontal air grooves in the vertical shaft fulfils the
requirement of additional aeration and provides safety against air locking, without
jeopardizing the performance of the shaft spillway.
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

Figure 8: Details of Horizontal Air Groove

CONCLUSIONS

• Vertical drop shafts are increasingly being used preferably to utilize the diversion
tunnels as spillway outlets.

• The drops and discharge may be as high as 200 m and 2000 cumec respectively as in
case of Tehri Left Bank Shaft Spillway.

• Swirling type of intake is advantageous over the other types as the flow adheres to the
shaft walls and energy is dissipated by friction. Guide lines for design of swirling flow
drop shafts are not adequate as most of the experimental work has been done for
sewers with moderate heads and small discharge intensities, nor analytical solutions
are available. Therefore, hydraulic model studies are inevitable for finalizing the design.

• Hydraulic model studies for Tehri left bank shaft spillway were useful in evolving the
design of swirling intake.

• Extensive aeration/de-aeration arrangement is necessary to avoid air locking.

Hydraulic model studies for Tehri left bank shaft spillway indicated the necessity of
providing horizontal aeration grooves so as to ventilate the drop shaft for entire ranges
of discharge and safety against air locking.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to Mrs. V.M. Bendre, Director, CWPRS for constant
encouragement and consent to publish this paper. Extensive feed back obtained during the
 Special Issue of Hydraulic Engineering, ISH, Oct. 2007

visit to UPIRI model and discussions with THDC and CWC officers is gratefully
acknowledged in evolving the design of Tehri left bank shaft spillway.

REFERENCES

Dhalin W.Q and Wetzel J.M. (1982) Hydraulic modeling of vertical drop shaft structures.
International Conference on the Hydraulic modeling of Civil Engineering Structures,
Conventry, England, Sept. 22-24.

Deolalikar P.B., Pethe P.C., Bhosekar V.V. (Mrs.), Sridevi M.I. (Mrs.) (2003) Hydraulics of
tunnel spillways HYDRO – 2003, CWPRS, Pune.

Hager Willi and Quick C. Michael (1990) Discussion and closure on the paper “Analysis of
spiral vortex and vertical slot vortex drop shafts” ASCE Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, Vol. 116, No.3.

Haindal K. (1967) Combined functional hydraulic structures of earth and rock-fill dams,
ICOLD, Istanbul, Q 33, R 15.

IAHR Design Manual No. 1, 1987, Swirling flow problems at intakes, Editor: J. Knauss

IAHR Design Manual No. 9, 1995, Hydraulic energy dissipators Ed. Vischer & Hager

Jain S.C. and J.F. Kennedy (1984), Vortex flows drop structures, Proc. of the IAHR/DVWK
Symposium on Scale Effects in Modelling, Hydraulic Structures, Paper 6.7,
Esslingen.

Jain S.C. and R. Ettema (1987), “Vortex Flow Intakes, IAHR Design Manual No.1, Swirling
flow problems at intakes, Ed. J. Knauss

View publication stats