Hydraulic features  163

0.20

Bu
P d)/
ad (Y d 0.20
0.16 stream he 2.0
Down 0.18
0.16

Length of weir L/Bu

2.5
0.14
Upstream head (YuPu)/Bu

0.12
0.12 3.0

0.10 3.5
4.0
0.08 0.08
5.0
0.06
6.0

6
5
4
3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02

0.04 0.04
0.01

Drawdown (YdYu)/Bu

0.00

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050

Inlet flow ratio Qu2 /gBu5

Figure 8.11 Chart for side weir design: double-side weir (horizontal weirs and channel bed), Qd/Qu = 0.1,
Bd/Bu = 1, Pu/Bu = Pd/Bu = 0.6, n = 0.010. (Reproduced from Delo, E.A. and Saul, A.J. 1989.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 87, June, 175–193. With permission of
Thomas Telford Publishing.)

In a plunge-flow drop shaft, the flow falls down freely as a jet, plunging into a pool at the
base of the shaft, or hitting the opposite wall of the shaft, or landing at the entry to the down-
stream sewer itself (Chanson, 2004a). Air entrainment can be a significant issue. Air may be
entrained by the free-falling jet, or when the jet lands in the pool, or hits the shaft wall, or if
a hydraulic jump forms in the downstream sewer. If there is not sufficient ventilation to com-
pensate for the air entrainment, sub-atmospheric conditions may occur in some parts of the
system, causing backing up in manholes and sewers. Air entrainment may also increase the risk
of downstream choking caused by a sudden transition to pressurised flow, or cause a reduction
in pipe discharge capacity due to bulking of the flow by the entrained air (Granata et al., 2011).
The main alternative to the plunge-flow drop shaft, particularly for drops greater than
7–10 m, is the vortex drop shaft.

8.3.1  Vortex drop shafts

In a vortex drop shaft, fluid flows helically downwards in contact with the inside of a cir-
cular wall, with a core of air at the centre. The intake must induce vortex flow in the drop
shaft. A scroll intake is a common arrangement, with design traditionally based on the
analysis by Ackers and Crump (1960). The inlet channel is volute shaped in plan (Figure
8.12), inducing a vortex in the vertically downwards flow.
Del Guidice and Gisonni (2010), in the context of the historical need for drop shafts to
cope with level differences in the city of Naples, discuss alternative inlet arrangements,
and present hydraulic analysis and experimental results relating to scroll intakes. Similarly,
Echavez and Ruiz (2008), this time based on experiences in Mexico City, give an overview
of drop shaft analysis and also present a hydraulic study of scroll intakes.
164  Urban Drainage

Inlet flow

Vertical drop

Figure 8.12 Scroll intake to vortex drop.

An alternative arrangement, common in the United States and being used increasingly in
the United Kingdom, is the tangential intake. This is more compact and simpler to construct
than the scroll intake. Riisnaes et al. (2014) compare the dimensions and requirements for a
tangential intake with those for a scroll intake, for a vortex drop located at a very restricted
site in London. They explain the advantages of a tangential intake for this case.
We now consider technical aspects of the tangential vortex intake. The typical layout is shown
in plan on Figure 8.13a and in vertical section on Figure 8.13b. Hydraulic analysis, based on
theory and physical modelling, is set out by Yu and Lee (2009), and is summarised here.
As can be seen from Figure 8.13, flow enters via a tapering and steeply sloping channel.
At relatively small flow rates, water depth in the approach channel and the sloping intake
is determined by the fact that critical depth (introduced in Chapter 7) occurs at section 1
(the start of the steeply sloping section). Conditions within the inlet upstream of this point

Section 1 Section 2

Inlet flow
(a) plan

Drop shaft

Flow
(b) vertical
section
z
φ

Figure 8.13 Tangential vortex intake.

 Hydraulic features  165

are subcritical, and conditions downstream are supercritical. This depth can be determined
from the standard expression for critical depth in a rectangular channel (Equation 7.28),
given here as Equation 8.8:

q12
dc1 = 3 (8.8)
g

where dc1 is the critical depth at section 1 (m), q1 is the flow rate per unit width at section
1 = Q/B1 (m 2 /s), Q is the flow rate (m3/s), and B1 is the channel with at section 1 (m).
At much larger flow rates, critical depth occurs at point 2. This drowns the control at
point 1, and conditions throughout are subcritical. The expression for this depth is similar
(Equation 8.9), but the vertical angle of the inlet channel must be included because depth is
measured perpendicular to the bed.

q22
dc2 = 3 (8.9)
g cosφ

where dc2 is the critical depth at section 2 (m), q2 is the flow rate per unit width at section
2 = Q/B2 (m 2 /s), B2 is the channel width at section 2 (m), and φ is the vertical slope angle of
intake channel (see Figure 8.13).
Based on specific energy in the approach channel (see Section 7.5.3) and assuming no
overall loss of energy, the flow rate at which this shift in control occurs (Yu and Lee, 2009)
can be determined from Equation 8.10:

gB2[2z / 3]3/ 2
Qc = (8.10)
((cos φ)2 / 3 − [B2 /B1 ]2 / 3)3/ 2

where Qc is the flow rate at which the shift in control occurs (m3/s), and for z refer to
Figure 8.13.
Conditions at the top of the vortex may cause disruption to the flow in the inlet channel
as a result of re-entering the inlet or disturbing the inflow jet. Based on the geometry of the
inlet, Yu and Lee (2009) give the maximum flow rate for which “free drainage” (no disrup-
tion) can be assumed, as
3/ 2
 πD 
Qf =  tan φ  gB2 (cos φ)2 (8.11)
 1 − B2 /D 

where Qf is the maximum flow rate for which free discharge can be assumed (m3/s), and D
is the diameter of drop shaft (m).
In design, Qc should be less than Qf so that the shift in control can occur when there is
free discharge (without disruption to flow in the inlet channel caused by conditions at the
top of the drop shaft), and Qf should exceed the design maximum flow rate (Qmax).
For sizing of the drop shaft, Yu and Lee (2009) propose using k = 1.2 within Equation 8.12:

 Q 2  1/ 5
D = k  max  (8.12)
 g 
 

A suitable value for B2 is given as 0.25D.

166  Urban Drainage

EXAMPLE 8.3
a. A vortex drop has a tangential intake with an inlet width (B1) of 2.2 m. The design
maximum flow rate is to be taken as 11 m3/s. The length available for the intake
channel is 8 m. Propose acceptable dimensions for the intake.
b. For your selected dimensions, determine a known depth in the intake channel at
the design flow rate. For a flow rate 20% greater than the design flow rate, deter-
mine a known depth.

Solution
a. Basing the drop shaft diameter on Equation 8.12, with k = 1.2, we have
1/ 5
 112 
D = 1 .2   = 1.98 m, so make D = 2 m
 g 
   

  Base the value of B2 on 0.25D, so B2 should be 0.5 m.

  Trying a value for z of 4 m, and using the whole of the 8 m for L, gives
φ = tan−1(4/8) = 26.6°.
  Equation 8.10 gives the value of Qc as 16.5 m3/s.
  And Equation 8.11 gives the value of Qf as 10.8 m3/s.
  This is not a good design because Qf is not only less than Qc, but it is also less
than Q max.
  To increase the value of Qf, we could increase the value of D, but that would be
a significant and costly change to the design. Let’s see first if increasing ϕ could be
effective. We do this by decreasing L; as we do not need an increase in Qc we also
reduce z.
 Try L = 4.25 m with z = 3 m. This gives φ = 35.2°.
  Equation 8.10 now gives the value of Qc as 12.5 m3/s.
  And Equation 8.11 gives the value of Qf as 15 m3/s.
  This is a satisfactory design because Qc is less than Qf, and Qf exceeds Q max.
b. The design flow rate of 11 m3/s is less than Qc, so the depth control is at section 1
in Figure 8.13.

Q 11
q1 = = = 5 m2 /s
  B1 2 .2

52
dc1 = 3 = 1.37 m
g
 

The known depth for a flow rate of 11 m3/s is at section 1: 1.37 m.

A 20% increase gives Q = 13.2 m3/s. This is greater than Qc, so the depth control
moves to section 2:

Q 13.2
q2 = = = 26.4 m2 /s
  B2 0 . 5

26.42
dc2 = 3 = 4.43 m
g cos 35.2
 

The known depth for a flow rate of 13.2 m3/s is at section 2: 4.43 m (perpendicular to
the bed).
 Hydraulic features  167

Although air entrainment is not considered to be as significant within a vortex drop shaft
as it is in a plunge-flow shaft, it can still be significant, and sufficient airflow is clearly an
important element in maintaining a stable air core.
The outlet arrangement for a vortex drop shaft must fulfil a number of functions. It must
direct the outflow into a horizontal conduit, it must facilitate the dissipation of energy, and it
must allow de-aeration to take place as flow enters the outlet pipe (Zhao et al., 2006). Outlet
arrangements are heavily dependent on the context of the sewer drop, and, like other aspects
of the design of a specific vortex drop shaft of significant size, are often best determined
through physical modelling (Riisnaes et al., 2014).
There are other hydraulic considerations in vortex drop shaft design. The risk of block-
age must be considered, and this may define a minimum channel width (B2 , the width at
section 2 on Figure 8.13a, in the case of a tangential intake). This, in turn, may define the
minimum drop shaft diameter. Also, the approach conditions in the channel leading to the
intake should be as stable as possible with no bends, steps, or other obstacles for a signifi-
cant length upstream of the intake.

8.3.2  Other sewer drop arrangements

A variation on the concept of the vortex drop shaft is a hybrid arrangement described by
Andoh et al. (2008), which uses an air intake control system to allow both vortex and verti-
cal pipe-full flow, and removes the need for a vortex-inducing inlet.
Granata (2016) discusses the use of a drop shaft cascade: a series of plunge-flow drop
shafts connected by lengths of sewer. The design is presented as an optimisation problem
involving selection of the configuration and number of drop shafts that minimise construc-
tion cost. This can be a more efficient solution than a single drop shaft for the same total
drop height, provided the sewer drop does not need to be at a single location.
Another arrangement for a sewer drop made up of a number of vertical drops is a stepped
cascade. This is a simple approach to energy dissipation but requires significantly more plan
area than the use of drop shafts. Flow passes down a series of simple connected steps, each
providing a small vertical drop. The nature of the flow conditions is dependent on the value
of the flow rate. At relatively low flows, a nappe flow regime exists in which there is a free
overfall from each step to the next (Figure 8.14). Assuming subcritical conditions upstream,
the depth at the edge of each step is equal to the critical depth (Section 7.5.4). On the next
step, the impact of the free-falling jet (or nappe) is followed by a hydraulic jump, then sub-
critical flow, then critical flow again at the edge of that step, and so on. At larger flow rates,
a skimming flow regime is established where flow hits the edge of each step but does not
form a particular flow pattern on each individual step. Principles for sizing cascade steps are
given by Chanson (2004b).

Flow
Nappe
dc Hydraulic jump

Figure 8.14 Stepped cascade (nappe flow regime).