water

Article
Impact of Main Pipe Flow Velocity on Leakage
and Intrusion Flow: An Experimental Study
Yu Shao 1 , Tian Yao 1 , Jinzhe Gong 2 , Jinjie Liu 1 , Tuqiao Zhang 1 and Tingchao Yu 1, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China;
shaoyu1979@zju.edu.cn (Y.S.); yaotian@zju.edu.cn (T.Y.); liujinjie2015@163.com (J.L.); ztq@zju.edu.cn (T.Z.)
2 School of Civil, Environmental, and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005,
Australia; jinzhe.gong@adelaide.edu.au
* Correspondence: yutingchao@zju.edu.cn




Received: 27 November 2018; Accepted: 7 January 2019; Published: 10 January 2019


Abstract: The classic orifice equation is commonly used to calculate the leakage and intrusion rate
for pressurized pipelines with cracks on the pipe wall. The conventional orifice equation does not
consider the effect of the flow velocity in the main pipe, and there is a lack of studies on this matter.
For this technical note, the influence of the main pipe flow velocity on the outflow and inflow through
a crack on the pipe wall was studied in the laboratory. The experimental results show that the impact
of the main pipe flow velocity can be significant. When the pressure difference across the orifice was
constant, with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity, the outflow velocity increased, but the
contraction area of the jet and the outflow discharge coefficient decreased. By comparing orifices with
different shapes, it was found that the discharge from the circumferential crack was most sensitive to
the main pipe flow velocity. In addition, the main pipe flow promoted the orifice inflow. When the
pressure difference across the orifice was constant, with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity,
the inflow discharge coefficient increased, which is the opposite pattern to that of the orifice outflow.

Keywords: intrusion; orifice; pipe leakage; flow velocity; water distribution system

1. Introduction
The leakage in water distribution systems (WDSs) is a global problem, with the leakage rate
typically ranging from about 10% in well-managed systems [1], to more than 30% in some developing
countries such as India and China [2]. Managing leaks in WDSs is also an important part of water
supply safety management, since contamination intrusion through cracks in the pipe wall may occur
during low or negative pressure events and this is a significant threat to public health [3]. In recent
years, external water intrusion during low or negative pressure transient events in urban water supply
systems has attracted more and more attention. The volume of intruded pollutants is one of the
significant indicators that can reflect the degree of health risks when a pollution incident occurs [4].
However, as will be shown, estimating the volume of intrusion based on the conventional orifice
equation that ignores the effect of the main pipe flow velocity may underestimate the volume of
intrusion and the risk to public health. Research into accurately assessing the leakage and intrusion
rates through cracked water pipes has attracted increasing attention [5].
The fact that leakage and intrusion through cracks in the pipe wall do not necessarily follow the
standard orifice equation (the discharge flow varies with the square root of pressure difference across
the orifice) has been widely recognized [5]. Early studies have shown that the flow through a leak
opening is related to the pressure raised to an exponent that varies typically from 0.5 to 2.5 depending
on: the material of the pipe, the shape of the leak and the system pressure [6]. Recent studies by
many researchers on various pipe materials and leak configurations support the observation under

Water 2019, 11, 118; doi:10.3390/w11010118 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 118 2 of 12

both leakage [7–15] and intrusion [5,16]. Regarding the amendment to the equation, the effects of
orifice shape and size on the orifice discharge coefficient has been investigated [17,18]. In addition,
the influence of the media surrounding the pipe on leakage and intrusion modelling has been
studied [19,20].
Despite the extensive studies on factors that affect pipe leakage flow as reviewed above, to the
knowledge of the authors, there is no detailed study on how the flow velocity in the main pipe
influences the leakage or intrusion flow. Researchers studied the effect of the flow velocity in a main
channel on the side discharge through an orifice under different liquid levels and pore sizes in a
trough-type liquid distributor using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations [21]. However,
the results of this work, obtained from investigations of free surface flow, cannot be directly applied to
the through-wall orifice flow in pressurized pipes.
The study reported in this technical note focuses on the effect of the main pipe flow velocity
on the leakage and intrusion through cracks on the pipe wall. A series of laboratory experiments
were conducted, and the experimental systems are described in detail. A crack on the pipe wall was
simulated by a through-wall orifice, and the leakage and intrusion were considered as the orifice
outflow and inflow, respectively. For the orifice outflow study, the outflow velocity, the contraction
area of the jet and the outflow discharge coefficient were measured and analyzed for various main pipe
flow and pressure conditions. For the orifice inflow study, the inflow discharge coefficient was studied
in detail and compared with the findings of the orifice outflow. The key findings of this experimental
study are summarized in the conclusion section.

2. Experimental Apparatus
Two experimental systems were used in this research: one for the study of orifice outflow (leakage)
and one for the orifice inflow (intrusion). The experimental setup for the orifice outflow study is
shown in Figure 1. The test pipe system was a DN50 straight pipeline with a total length of 18.0 m.
The majority of the pipe system was made of galvanized steel pipes. A short stainless-steel pipe
section (0.5 m in length, 53 mm in internal diameter and 2 mm in wall thickness) with a through-wall
orifice was installed in the system to simulate a leak. Three stainless-steel pipe sections were made to
simulate three different leak shapes: a circular orifice (3 mm in diameter) to simulate a pinhole leak,
a rectangular orifice (7.07 mm in length, 1 mm in width) to simulate a longitudinal crack in a pipe wall,
and a rectangular orifice with the same dimensions to simulate a circumferential crack, as shown in
Figure 2. The orifices were laser drilled with high precision in the dimensions, and the three orifices
had the same opening area (7.07 mm2 ). The upstream and downstream ends of the pipeline system
were connected to overflow tanks for water supply and drainage, respectively. A variable-speed water
pump (50AAB HLS-25-50-2, Shanghai Panda, rated power 5.5 kW, rated working pressure 0.5 MPa)
and a diaphragm pressure tank (SQL600-0.6, Shanghai Panda, pressure 0.6 MPa, effective volume
120 L) constituted a pipeline pressure stabilization system to regulate the flow velocity and pressure
in the pipeline. Two magnetic flowmeters (OPTIFLUX2100C, KROHNE) were installed close to the
upstream and downstream ends of the pipeline, respectively. The ratio of the flow rate reading to the
cross-sectional area of pipeline was taken as the flow velocity in the pipeline. The orifices discharged
water to the atmosphere. To measure the profile of the orifice discharge, a camera (HDR-CX405, SONY,
frame rate 50P) was installed at a position above the orifice to record the flow jet images. The images
were processed with AutoCAD, then the minimum cross-sectional area at the vena contracta (the point
where the diameter of the stream is the least) and the tilt angle (degree of inclination) of the outflow jet
were calculated.
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    3  of  12 
Water 2019, 11, 118
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    3 of 
3  of 12
12 

 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice outflow study. 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice outflow study.  
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice outflow study. 

     
(a)  (b)  (c) 
     
(a) 
Figure 2. Photos (b) orifice, (b) the circumferential orifice,
of the three orifices: (a) the circular (c)  and (c) the
Figure 2. Photos of the three orifices: (a) the circular orifice, (b) the circumferential orifice, and (c) the 
longitudinal orifice.
longitudinal orifice. 
Figure 2. Photos of the three orifices: (a) the circular orifice, (b) the circumferential orifice, and (c) the 
longitudinal orifice. 
The pressure acquisition system consisted of four GE PTX-5032 pressure transmitters with a range
The  pressure  acquisition  system  consisted  of  four  GE  PTX‐5032  pressure  transmitters  with  a 
of 10 bar and a precision of ±0.04%. These pressure sensors were connected to a data acquisition
range of 10 bar and a precision of ±0.04%. These pressure sensors were connected to a data acquisition 
The  pressure  acquisition  system  consisted  of  four  GE  PTX‐5032  pressure  transmitters  with  a 
card. Two pressure sensors were installed at locations 0.5 m upstream and downstream of the orifice,
card. Two pressure sensors were installed at locations 0.5 m upstream and downstream of the orifice, 
range of 10 bar and a precision of ±0.04%. These pressure sensors were connected to a data acquisition 
respectively. The average of their readings was taken as the pressure at the orifice. There was a small
respectively. The average of their readings was taken as the pressure at the orifice. There was a small 
card. Two pressure sensors were installed at locations 0.5 m upstream and downstream of the orifice, 
head loss at the orifice, but it was proven by comparison experiments that the value was negligible
head loss at the orifice, but it was proven by comparison experiments that the value was negligible 
respectively. The average of their readings was taken as the pressure at the orifice. There was a small 
and did not affect the experimental results reported hereafter. The volumetric method was used to
and did not affect the experimental results reported hereafter. The volumetric method was used to 
head loss at the orifice, but it was proven by comparison experiments that the value was negligible 
measure the orifice discharge rate. The orifice flow velocity was obtained by dividing the discharge
measure the orifice discharge rate. The orifice flow velocity was obtained by dividing the discharge 
and did not affect the experimental results reported hereafter. The volumetric method was used to 
rate by the minimum cross-sectional area.
rate by the minimum cross‐sectional area. 
measure the orifice discharge rate. The orifice flow velocity was obtained by dividing the discharge 
The experimental setup for the orifice inflow study is illustrated in Figure 3. The main difference
The experimental setup for the orifice inflow study is illustrated in Figure 3. The main difference 
rate by the minimum cross‐sectional area. 
from the setup for the outflow study (Figure 1) was the use of a customized pressure tank to enclose
from the setup for the outflow study (Figure 1) was the use of a customized pressure tank to enclose 
The experimental setup for the orifice inflow study is illustrated in Figure 3. The main difference 
the pipe section with an orifice and to provide a stable external pressure for the orifice, as shown in
the pipe section with an orifice and to provide a stable external pressure for the orifice, as shown in 
from the setup for the outflow study (Figure 1) was the use of a customized pressure tank to enclose 
Figure 4. There was a diaphragm valve on the inlet pipe (the pipe that connects the pressure tank
Figure 4. There was a diaphragm valve on the inlet pipe (the pipe that connects the pressure tank and 
the pipe section with an orifice and to provide a stable external pressure for the orifice, as shown in 
and the variable-speed pump). The regulation of the valve opening and the pump speed helped to
the variable‐speed pump). The regulation of the valve opening and the pump speed helped to achieve 
Figure 4. There was a diaphragm valve on the inlet pipe (the pipe that connects the pressure tank and 
achieve various required external pressures. The measurement of the inflow discharge was based on a
various required external pressures. The measurement of the inflow discharge was based on a high 
the variable‐speed pump). The regulation of the valve opening and the pump speed helped to achieve 
high precision
precision  volumetric
volumetric  flowmeter
flowmeter  (MG008S511221R2,
(MG008S511221R2,  TRIMEC)
TRIMEC)  installed
installed  on on theinlet 
the  inletpipe 
pipeof 
of the
the 
various required external pressures. The measurement of the inflow discharge was based on a high 
customized pressure tank.
customized pressure tank. 
precision  volumetric  flowmeter  (MG008S511221R2,  TRIMEC)  installed  on  the  inlet  pipe  of  the 
The experiment in each specific setup was repeated five times under the same conditions,
The experiment in each specific setup was repeated five times under the same conditions, and 
customized pressure tank. 
and the experimental
the  experimental  data
data  were
were  averaged
averaged  using
using  the
the  five
five  repeatedmeasurements 
repeated  measurementswherever 
whereverapplicable. 
applicable.
The experiment in each specific setup was repeated five times under the same conditions, and 
The relative difference between the five experimental values and the average value was controlled
The relative difference between the five experimental values and the average value was controlled 
the  experimental  data  were  averaged  using  the  five  repeated  measurements  wherever  applicable. 
within 1% to ensure the accuracy of the results.  
within 1% to ensure the accuracy of the results. 
The relative difference between the five experimental values and the average value was controlled 
within 1% to ensure the accuracy of the results.   
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    4  of  12 
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
Water 2019, 11, 118   4  of 12
4 of 12 

 
 
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice inflow study. 
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice inflow study.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the orifice inflow study. 

 
 
Figure 4. Customised pressure tank in the orifice inflow experimental setup. 
Figure 4. Customised pressure tank in the orifice inflow experimental setup.
Figure 4. Customised pressure tank in the orifice inflow experimental setup. 
3. Results of the Orifice Outflow Study  
3. Results of the Orifice Outflow Study
3. Results of the Orifice Outflow Study 
3.1. Inclination of the Circular Orifice Outflow
3.1. Inclination of the Circular Orifice Outflow   
3.1. Inclination of the Circular Orifice Outflow   
The outflow inclination refers to the angle between the orifice outflow direction and the direction
The outflow inclination refers to the angle between the orifice outflow direction and the direction 
of flow The outflow inclination refers to the angle between the orifice outflow direction and the direction 
in the main pipe. Experimental observations of the outflow from the circular orifice demonstrate
of  flow  in  the  main  pipe.  Experimental  observations  of  the  outflow  from  the  circular  orifice 
of  flow 
that both in 
thethe 
mainmain 
pipepipe.  Experimental 
flow velocity observations 
and the of  the 
orifice pressure (i.e.,outflow  from  difference
the pressure the  circular  orifice 
cross the
demonstrate  that  both  the  main  pipe  flow  velocity  and  the  orifice  pressure  (i.e.,  the  pressure 
demonstrate 
orifice) that 
affected the both  the  main 
inclination. Frompipe 
the flow  velocity 
results and 
of one set of the  orifice  pressure 
experiments where the(i.e.,  the  pressure
orifice pressure 
difference cross the orifice) affected the inclination. From the results of one set of experiments where 
difference cross the orifice) affected the inclination. From the results of one set of experiments where 
was controlled at about 2 m, the inclination was found to change with the main pipe flow velocity,
the orifice pressure was controlled at about 2 m, the inclination was found to change with the main 
the orifice pressure was controlled at about 2 m, the inclination was found to change with the main 
as shown in Figure 5. In the figure, H represents the orifice pressure, V represents the upstream main
pipe flow velocity, as shown in Figure 5. In the figure, H represents the orifice pressure, V represents 
pipe flow velocity, as shown in Figure 5. In the figure, H represents the orifice pressure, V represents 
pipe flow velocity and its direction from right to left, and θ represents the outflow tilt angle. Figure 5
the upstream main pipe flow velocity and its direction from right to left, and θ represents the outflow 
the upstream main pipe flow velocity and its direction from right to left, and θ represents the outflow 
shows that when H is constant, the direction of the orifice outflow jet was obviously more inclined to
tilt angle. Figure 5 shows that when H is constant, the direction of the orifice outflow jet was obviously 
tilt angle. Figure 5 shows that when H is constant, the direction of the orifice outflow jet was obviously 
the downstream direction as V increased. Note that upstream water was not able to be completely
more inclined to the downstream direction as V increased. Note that upstream water was not able to 
more inclined to the downstream direction as V increased. Note that upstream water was not able to 
stopped and V was lower than 0.02 m/s when the downstream valve was closed.
be completely stopped and V was lower than 0.02 m/s when the downstream valve was closed. 
be completely stopped and V was lower than 0.02 m/s when the downstream valve was closed. 
 Water 2019, 11, 118 5 of 12
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    5  of  12 

 
Figure 5. Photos showing that the inclination of the circular orifice outflow (θ) varied with the main 
Figure 5. Photos showing that the inclination of the circular orifice outflow (θ) varied with the main
pipe flow velocity (V). 
pipe flow velocity (V).

Figure 6 shows the relationship between θ and V under various orifice pressure conditions. It 
Figure 6 shows the relationship between θ and V under various orifice pressure conditions. It can
can 
be seenseen 
be  fromfrom  Figure 
Figure 6 that6 for
that 
anyfor  any  specific 
specific orifice  pressure, 
orifice pressure, the 
the orifice orifice increasingly
outflow outflow  increasingly 
inclined to
inclined to the downstream direction of the pipe with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity. 
the downstream direction of the pipe with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity. This observation
This observation was understandable and expected, since the orifice outflow carried the inertial of 
was understandable and expected, since the orifice outflow carried the inertial of the original flow.
the original flow. For the same main pipe velocity (V), the smaller the orifice pressure (H), the smaller 
For the same main pipe velocity (V), the smaller the orifice pressure (H), the smaller the inclination
the inclination angle. This means that the outflow inclination was more sensitive to the main pipe 
angle. This means that the outflow inclination was more sensitive to the main pipe velocity (V),
velocity (V), under lower pipe pressure conditions. 
under lower pipe pressure conditions.  

90 1m
Outflow inclination Ɵ（°）

88 2m
3m
86
4m
84 5m

82

80

78

76
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Main pipe flow velocity V (m/s)
 
Figure 6. Relationship between the outflow inclination (θ) and the main pipe flow velocity (V) under
Figure 6. Relationship between the outflow inclination (θ) and the main pipe flow velocity (V) under 
various orifice pressure conditions (1 to 5 m).
various orifice pressure conditions (1 to 5 m). 
3.2. Cross-Sectional Area and Velocity of the Circular Orifice Outflow
3.2. Cross‐Sectional Area and Velocity of the Circular Orifice Outflow 
It is known that a circular orifice causes a contraction of the jet downstream from the orifice
opening [22]. Figure
It  is  known  that  a 7 circular 
shows the shape
orifice  of thea jet
causes  when the of 
contraction  orifice pressure
the  jet  was 2 m.
downstream  Because
from  of the
the  orifice 
opening [22]. Figure 7 shows the shape of the jet when the orifice pressure was 2 m. Because of the of
main pipe flow velocity, the shape of the cross-section of the jet in this study was different from that
the conventional flow through an orifice located at the wall of a pressure tank. The right part of the jet
main pipe flow velocity, the shape of the cross‐section of the jet in this study was different from that 
(the main pipe flow is from right to left) is not circular but approximately flat as indicated in Figure 7b.
of the conventional flow through an orifice located at the wall of a pressure tank. The right part of 
the jet (the main pipe flow is from right to left) is not circular but approximately flat as indicated in 
Water 2019, 11, 118 6 of 12

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    6  of  12 

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    6  of  12 
Its vena contracta is approximately located at 1/2 of the orifice diameter from the orifice. The shape of
Figure 7b. Its vena contracta is approximately located at 1/2 of the orifice diameter from the orifice. 
the minimum cross-sectional area is the shaded sector, as shown in Figure 7b. The cross-sectional area
Figure 7b. Its vena contracta is approximately located at 1/2 of the orifice diameter from the orifice. 
The shape of the minimum cross‐sectional area is the shaded sector, as shown in Figure 7b. The cross‐
atThe shape of the minimum cross‐sectional area is the shaded sector, as shown in Figure 7b. The cross‐
the vena contracta (Ac ), can be estimated by calculating the area of the shaded sector measuring the
sectional area at the vena contracta (A
length , can be estimated by calculating the area of the shaded sector 
of x. The contraction coefficientc)c)(ε), is defined by the following equation:
sectional area at the vena contracta (A , can be estimated by calculating the area of the shaded sector 
measuring the length of x. The contraction coefficient (ε), is defined by the following equation: 
measuring the length of x. The contraction coefficient (ε), is defined by the following equation: 
Ac
ε= , (1)
A , ,  (1)
(1)
where A is the cross‐sectional area of the orifice, and A = 7.07 mm
where A is the cross-sectional area of the orifice, and A = 7.07 mm2  in this study. 
2
2in this study.
where A is the cross‐sectional area of the orifice, and A = 7.07 mm  in this study. 

   
(a)    (b)   
(a)  (b) 
Figure 7. Orifice outflow jet (a) and the contracted cross‐sectional area (b). 
Figure 7. Orifice outflow jet (a) and the contracted cross‐sectional area (b). 
Figure 7. Orifice outflow jet (a) and the contracted cross-sectional area (b).

In this set of experiments, the orifice pressure was controlled at about 2.0 m. Figure 8 shows the 
In this set of experiments, the orifice pressure was controlled at about 2.0 m. Figure 8 shows
In this set of experiments, the orifice pressure was controlled at about 2.0 m. Figure 8 shows the 
relationship between the contraction coefficient and the main pipe flow velocity. Dividing the orifice 
the relationship between the contraction coefficient and the main pipe flow velocity. Dividing the
relationship between the contraction coefficient and the main pipe flow velocity. Dividing the orifice 
discharge  rate  Q  (as Qdetermined  by  the  volumetric  method)  by by
Ac  provides 
providesthe 
theorifice  outflow 
orifice discharge
discharge  rate
rate  Q  (as determined
(as  determined  by  by
the the volumetric
volumetric  method)
method)  by  AAc cprovides  the  orifice
orifice outflow
outflow 
velocity. 
velocity. The  relationship  between  the  outflow  velocity  and  the  main  pipe  flow  velocity  was  also 
velocity. The
The relationship
relationship between
between the the outflow
outflow velocity
velocity and
and the
the main
main pipe
pipe flow
flow velocity
velocity was
was also
also 
reported in Figure 8. From Figure 8, when the orifice pressure was about 2 m, with the increase of the 
reported in Figure 8. From Figure 8, when the orifice pressure was about 2 m, with the increase of
reported in Figure 8. From Figure 8, when the orifice pressure was about 2 m, with the increase of the 
main 
the mainpipe flow 
pipe flowvelocity 
velocity(from  0  to 
(from0 0to 1.8 m/s), 
to1.8 m/s), the 
1.8 m/s),the  contraction 
thecontraction  coefficient 
contractioncoefficient  decreased 
coefficient decreased  and 
decreased and the  outflow 
main  pipe flow  velocity  (from  and the
the outflow
outflow 
velocity increased. 
velocity increased.  
velocity increased.   

6.0 0.92
6.0 0.92
coefficient
contractioncoefficient

5.8 0.9
5.8
(m/s)

0.9
velocity(m/s)

5.6
5.6 0.88
0.88
5.4
Orificevelocity

5.4 0.86
0.86
Orificecontraction

5.2
5.2
0.84
5.0 0.84
5.0
Orifice

0.82
4.8 0.82
4.8
0.8
Orifice

4.6 0.8
4.6
4.4 0.78
4.40.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 0.78
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Main
Mainpipe
pipeflow
flowvelocity
velocityV(m/s)
V(m/s)
Orifice velocity Orifice contraction coefficient
Orifice velocity Orifice contraction coefficient
 
Figure 8. Variations of the orifice contraction coefficient and the orifice velocity according to the main  
pipe flow velocity (circular orifice, 2 m orifice pressure).
Figure 8. Variations of the orifice contraction coefficient and the orifice velocity according to the main 
Figure 8. Variations of the orifice contraction coefficient and the orifice velocity according to the main 
pipe flow velocity (circular orifice, 2 m orifice pressure). 
pipe flow velocity (circular orifice, 2 m orifice pressure). 

 
 
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    7  of  12 
Water 2019, 11, 118 7 of 12

3.3. Discharge Coefficient of the Circular Orifice 
3.3.The standard orifice equation derived from Bernoulli’s equation is acknowledged to estimate 
Discharge Coefficient of the Circular Orifice
the flow through an orifice: 
The standard orifice equation derived from Bernoulli’s equation is acknowledged to estimate the
flow through an orifice: p2   (2) 
Q = µA 2gH (2)
where g is the gravitational acceleration. The discharge coefficient (μ), can be calculated by Equation 
where g is the gravitational acceleration. The discharge coefficient (µ), can be calculated by Equation (2)
(2) using the outflow discharge rate (Q), measured under various orifice pressures and main pipe 
using the outflow discharge rate (Q), measured under various orifice pressures and main pipe flow
flow velocity conditions. The equation commonly describes the flow through an orifice located at the 
wall  of  a conditions.
velocity Thewhich 
pressure  tank  equation commonly
is  large  describes
enough  theto flow
relative  the through anignore 
orifice  to  orifice located at the
the  water  wall of
velocity 
a pressure tank which is large enough relative to the orifice to ignore the water velocity perpendicular
perpendicular to the outflow direction. Note that the opening area of the orifice and the square root 
to the outflow direction. Note that the opening area of the orifice and the square root relationship with
relationship with the pressure are considered in Equation (2), as following the convention. 
the Figure 
pressure 9  are considered
shows  in the 
that,  for  Equation
same (2),
(or as following
similar)  thepipe 
main  convention.
flow  velocity  (V),  the  discharge 
Figure 9 shows that, for the same (or similar) main pipe flow velocity (V), the discharge coefficient
coefficient (μ), decreased with the increase in orifice pressure (H). This is consistent with the curve‐
(µ), decreased with the increase in orifice pressure (H). This
fit  formulas  developed  by  International  Organization  for  Standardization  is consistent with thewhich 
(ISO),  curve-fit formulas
reveal  the 
developed by International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which reveal the relationship
relationship between μ and Reynolds number [23]. It suggests that the velocity coefficient (φ), which 
between µ and Reynolds number [23]. It suggests that the velocity coefficient (ϕ), which is the ratio of
is the ratio of the flow velocity at the contraction cross‐sectional area to the orifice velocity, decreases 
the flow velocity at the contraction cross-sectional area to the orifice velocity, decreases with the growth
with the growth of H; while the contraction coefficient (ε), is known to increase with H. This can be 
of H; while the contraction coefficient (ε), is known to increase with H. This can be explained when the
explained when the promotion of H to the local resistance coefficient (ξ), which is the ratio of local 
promotion of H to the
resistance  generated  by local resistance
the  fluid  coefficient
flowing  through  (ξ), which
the  is the ratio
equipment  of local
to  the  resistance dynamic 
corresponding  generated
by the fluid flowing through the equipment to the corresponding dynamic pressure, at the orifice
pressure, at the orifice is taken into account. The existence of larger H makes the outflow direction 
is taken into account. The existence of larger H makes the outflow direction change more rapidly,
change more rapidly, which probably leads to an increase of ξ. Admittedly, the specific theoretical 
which probably
relationship  leadsto 
remains  to be 
an increase
explored.  of ξ.
In Admittedly, the specific
addition,  when  theoretical
the  orifice  relationship
pressure  remains to
H  is  constant,  be
the 
explored. In addition, when the orifice pressure H is constant, the discharge coefficient (µ), decreases
discharge coefficient (μ), decreases with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity (V). The influence 
with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity (V). The influence of V on µ is more significant for
of V on μ is more significant for lower orifice pressure. When H was 2 m, as V increased from 0.2 m/s 
lower orifice pressure. When H was 2 m, as V increased from 0.2 m/s to 2.2 m/s, µ reduced from
to 2.2 m/s, μ reduced from 0.685 to 0.638; that is, a reduction of 6.9%. When H was 20 m, as V increased 
0.685 to 0.638; that is, a reduction of 6.9%. When H was 20 m, as V increased from 0.2 m/s to 2.2 m/s,
from 0.2 m/s to 2.2 m/s, μ changed from 0.655 to 0.645, the reduction was only 1.5%. 
µ changed from 0.655 to 0.645, the reduction was only 1.5%.

0.71
1m
Outflow discharge coefficient µ

0.70 2m
5m
0.69
10m
0.68 20m

0.67

0.66

0.65

0.64
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Main pipe flow velocity V (m/s)
Figure 9. Variations of the outflow discharge coefficient of a circular orifice according to the main pipe
flow velocity under different pressure conditions (1 to 20 m).
Figure 9. Variations of the outflow discharge coefficient of a circular orifice according to the main 
pipe flow velocity under different pressure conditions (1 to 20 m). 
Obviously, the outflow discharge is affected by both the area (Ac ), and the outflow velocity.
As mentioned in the previous section, the greater the V, the smaller the µ and the smaller the Ac ,
butObviously, the outflow discharge is affected by both the area (A
the greater the outflow velocity, which means that the contraction c),  and the outflow velocity. As 
of the jet has a greater effect
mentioned in the previous section, the greater the V, the smaller the μ and the smaller the A
on the outflow discharge than the outflow velocity. When the orifice area is constant, Ac iscpositively , but the 
greater the outflow velocity, which means that the contraction of the jet has a greater effect on the 
correlated with the contraction coefficient, and the outflow velocity is positively correlated with the
outflow 
velocitydischarge 
coefficient.than  the  outflow 
Therefore, velocity. 
the main When  the 
factor affecting the orifice  area  is  constant, 
orifice outflow Ac  is  positively 
is the contraction coefficient.
correlated with the contraction coefficient, and the outflow velocity is positively correlated with the 
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    8  of  12 

velocity  coefficient.  Therefore,  the  main  factor  affecting  the  orifice  outflow  is  the  contraction 
Water 2019, 11, 118 8 of 12
coefficient. 

3.4. Effect of the Shape of the Orifice   

3.4. Effect of the Shape of the Orifice
Additional experiments were conducted using the two rectangular orifices, with one simulating 
Additional experiments were conducted using the two rectangular orifices, with one simulating
a longitudinal crack on the pipe wall and another simulating a circumferential crack, as shown in 
a longitudinal crack on the pipe wall and another simulating a circumferential crack, as shown in
Figure 2. The two rectangular orifices had a length of 7.07 mm and a width of 1 mm, and the opening 
Figure 2. The two rectangular orifices had a length of 7.07 mm and a width of 1 mm, and the opening
area was the same as the circular orifice discussed earlier (with a diameter of 3 mm). Figure 10 shows 
area was the same as the circular orifice discussed earlier (with a diameter of 3 mm). Figure 10 shows
the photos of the outflow jets coming out of the three orifices with different shapes. In the presence 
the photos of the outflow jets coming out of the three orifices with different shapes. In the presence
of main pipe flow velocity, the difference between the shape of the cross‐section of the jet and the 
of main pipe flow velocity, the difference between the shape of the cross-section of the jet and the
circumferential orifice was the largest, and the shrinkage of the jet was most obvious. The difference 
circumferential orifice was the largest, and the shrinkage of the jet was most obvious. The difference
between the shape of the cross‐section and the longitudinal orifice was the least, and the shrinkage 
between the shape of the cross-section and the longitudinal orifice was the least, and the shrinkage
was the least obvious. 
was the least obvious.  

     
(a)  (b)  (c) 
Figure  10.  The 
Figure 10. Theoutflow 
outflowjets 
jetsfrom 
fromdifferently‐shaped 
differently-shapedorifices: 
orifices:(a)  (a)
longitudinal;  (b)  (b)
longitudinal; circular;  (c) 
circular;
circumferential. 
(c) circumferential.

The discharge coefficients for the three types of orifice were determinied for varying main pipe
The discharge coefficients for the three types of orifice were determinied for varying main pipe 
flow velocities (0.4 to 1.5 m/s) under a constant orifice pressue of 2 m, and the results are presented in
flow velocities (0.4 to 1.5 m/s) under a constant orifice pressue of 2 m, and the results are presented 
Figure 11. It can be seen that the slope of the curve corresponding to the circumferential orifice was the
in Figure 11. It can be seen that the slope of the curve corresponding to the circumferential orifice was 
largest, and the slope corresponding to longitudinal orifice was the smallest. This indicates that the
the largest, and the slope corresponding to longitudinal orifice was the smallest. This indicates that 
discharge of the circumferential orifice was most affected by the main pipe flow velocity, while the
the discharge of the circumferential orifice was most affected by the main pipe flow velocity, while 
discharge of the longitudinal orifice was the least affected. Figure 11 also shows that the discharge
the discharge of the longitudinal orifice was the least affected. Figure 11 also shows that the discharge 
coefficient of the longitudinal orifice was larger than that of the other two types of orifices with the
coefficient of the longitudinal orifice was larger than that of the other two types of orifices with the 
same opening
same  opening  area. It is 
area.  It  is confirmed 
confirmed that 
that without 
without the 
the main 
main pipe 
pipe flow
flow  velocity
velocity  (V), the shape 
(V),  the  shape of 
of the
the 
rectangular orifices with the same area had no obvious influence on the discharge coefficient [24].
rectangular orifices with the same area had no obvious influence on the discharge coefficient [24]. 
This may be because with the presence of V, the contraction cross section mainly shrank at the upper
This may be because with the presence of V, the contraction cross section mainly shrank at the upper 
interface of the orifice, as shown in Figure 7b. In the three orifices, the circumferential orifice had
interface of the orifice, as shown in Figure 7b. In the three orifices, the circumferential orifice had the 
the longest
longest  upper
upper  interface,
interface,  resulting
resulting  in  in the
the  largest
largest  contractionof ofthe 
contraction  thejet 
jetand 
and the 
the smallest 
smallest discharge
discharge 
coefficient. The
coefficient.  The longitudinal
longitudinal  orifice waswas 
orifice  just the
just opposite to thatto 
the  opposite  of the circumferential
that  orifice. Therefore,
of  the  circumferential  orifice. 
the longitudinal cracks with the higher flow discharge coefficient should be more affected during the
actual leakage control.
 Therefore, the longitudinal cracks with the higher flow discharge coefficient should be more affected 
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW    9  of  12 
during the actual leakage control.   

Therefore, the longitudinal cracks with the higher flow discharge coefficient should be more affected 
during the actual leakage control. 
Water 2019, 11, 118 0.72   9 of 12

Outflow discharge coefficient µ

0.720.70

Outflow discharge coefficient µ

0.700.68

0.680.66

Longitudinal
0.660.64 Circular
Circumferential
Longitudinal
0.640.62 Circular
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Circumferential
Main pipe flow velocity V (m/s)
0.62
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Main pipe flow velocity V (m/s)
Figure 11. Outflow discharge coefficients for orifices in different shapes and orientations, with the main 
pipe flow velocity varying from 0.4 to 1.5 m/s and a constant orifice pressure of about 2 m. 
Figure 11. Outflow discharge coefficients for orifices in different shapes and orientations, with the
main pipe flow velocity varying from 0.4 to 1.5 m/s and a constant orifice pressure of about 2 m.
Figure 11. Outflow discharge coefficients for orifices in different shapes and orientations, with the main 
4. Results of the Orifice Inflow Study 
pipe flow velocity varying from 0.4 to 1.5 m/s and a constant orifice pressure of about 2 m. 
4. Results of the Orifice Inflow Study
The  orifice  inflow  (intrusion)  in  WDSs  is  submerged  flow,  which  means  that  the  head  loss 
experienced by the submerged jet includes not only the minor loss through the orifice but also the 
4. Results of the Orifice Inflow Study 
The orifice inflow (intrusion) in WDSs is submerged flow, which means that the head loss
sudden expansion from the vena contracta in the downstream water body. In the experiments for the 
experienced by the submerged jet includes not only the minor loss through the orifice but also the
The  orifice  inflow  (intrusion)  in  WDSs  is  submerged  flow,  which  means  that  the  head  loss 
orifice inflow study, the circular orifice was used, and the pipe internal pressure was controlled at 
sudden expansion from the vena contracta in the downstream water body. In the experiments for the
experienced by the submerged jet includes not only the minor loss through the orifice but also the 
about 2 m by adjusting the water levels of the two overflow tanks connected to the pipe. The main 
orifice inflow study, the circular orifice was used, and the pipe internal pressure was controlled at
sudden expansion from the vena contracta in the downstream water body. In the experiments for the 
pipe 
about 2mflow  velocity  (V) 
by adjusting thewas  adjusted 
water levels ofby 
thecontrolling 
two overflowthe tanks
diaphragm  valve 
connected to opening. 
the pipe. The  external 
The main
orifice inflow study, the circular orifice was used, and the pipe internal pressure was controlled at 
pressure was set to 4 m, 6 m and 8 m by adjusting the pump frequency and the diaphragm valve 
pipe flow velocity (V) was adjusted by controlling the diaphragm valve opening. The external pressure
about 2 m by adjusting the water levels of the two overflow tanks connected to the pipe. The main 
wasopening at the same time. The inflow discharge coefficients (μ
set to 4 m, 6 m and 8 m by adjusting the pump frequency and i), were calculated for different scenarios 
the diaphragm valve opening at
pipe  flow  velocity  (V)  was  adjusted  by  controlling  the  diaphragm  valve  opening.  The  external 
theand the results are shown in Figure 12. 
same time. The inflow discharge coefficients (µi ), were calculated for different scenarios and the
pressure was set to 4 m, 6 m and 8 m by adjusting the pump frequency and the diaphragm valve 
results are shown in Figure 12.
opening at the same time. The inflow discharge coefficients (μi), were calculated for different scenarios 
and the results are shown in Figure 12. 
Inflow discharge coefficient µi

0.81
Inflow discharge coefficient µi

0.810.80

0.800.79

8-2m
0.790.78 6-2m
4-2m
8-2m
0.780.77 6-2m
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
4-2m
Main pipe flow velocity V(m/s)
0.77
Figure 12. 0.0 0.2
Inflow discharge 0.4
coefficients 0.6 0.8 orifice
for the circular 1.0 (with pipe
1.2 internal 1.6at 2 m and  
1.4 pressure
external Main pipe flow velocity V(m/s)
Figure 12. Inflow discharge coefficients for the circular orifice (with pipe internal pressure at 2 m and 
pressure at 4, 6 and 8 m).
external pressure at 4, 6 and 8 m).   
It can be seen from Figure 12 that, when the orifice pressure head difference was 2 m (i.e., 4 m
Figure 12. Inflow discharge coefficients for the circular orifice (with pipe internal pressure at 2 m and 
external pressure), the inflow discharge coefficient changed from 0.773 to 0.806 (an increase of 4.3%)
external pressure at 4, 6 and 8 m). 
while the main pipe flow velocity increased from 0.2 to 1.6 m/s. In addition, the smaller the pressure
Water 2019, 11, 118 10 of 12

head difference, the greater the slope of the corresponding curve; which means that the influence of the
main pipe flow velocity on the orifice inflow was more significant for the lower orifice head difference.
Compared with the outflow discharge coefficient curve for the circular orifice in Figure 11 (under
the same orifice and pressure conditions) the inflow discharge coefficients were larger than the
outflow discharge coefficients for all the main pipe flow velocities considered. More importantly,
with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity, the inflow discharge coefficient increased, while the
outflow discharge coefficient decreased. Compared with the outflow discharge coefficients in
Figure 9 (under the same orifice and main pipe flow conditions) the inflow discharge coefficient
increased with the increase in orifice pressure head difference, while the outflow discharge coefficient
decreased. These observations contradict to the conventional thinking that the discharge coefficients
for through-wall orifice inflow and outflow are the same, as discussed in some of the literature [16].
It is clear that the difference in the inflow and outflow discharge coefficients as observed is mainly
related due to the inertia (the kinetic energy) of the main pipe flow. However, more research is needed
to understand the relationship.

5. Conclusions
A series of laboratory experiments were conducted to study the effect of the main pipe flow
velocity on the water leakage (orifice outflow) and intrusion (orifice inflow). The findings of this
experimental study demonstrate that the main pipe flow velocity can have a significant impact on the
estimation of the leakage or intrusion rate of leaking water pipes. This is particularly important for
intrusion analysis, where the pressure difference across the through-wall crack is low and the influence
of the main pipe flow velocity is strong.
The key findings are summarized as follows:

1. The main pipe flow velocity influenced the orifice outflow. When the pressure difference across
the orifice was constant, with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity, the outflow velocity
increased, but the contraction area of the jet and the outflow discharge coefficient (as calculated
using the conventional orifice equation) decreased.
2. For the orifice outflow, three types of orifices were considered: a circular orifice to simulate a
pinhole leak, a rectangular orifice to simulate a longitudinal crack in a pipe wall, and a rectangular
orifice to simulate a circumferential crack. When the orifice pressures and the orifice opening
areas were the same, the discharge of the circumferential orifice was the most sensitive to the
main pipe flow velocity, and the discharge of the longitudinal orifice was the least sensitive.
3. The main pipe flow velocity promoted the orifice inflow. When the pressure difference across
the orifice was constant, with the increase of the main pipe flow velocity, the inflow discharge
coefficient increased, which the opposite pattern to that of the orifice outflow. For the same
pressure difference and the main pipe velocity, the inflow discharge coefficient was larger than
the outflow counterpart.
4. For both the orifice inflow and outflow, the impact of the main pipe flow velocity was more
significant for the lower pressure head difference across the orifice.

Future studies should investigate the underlying reasons for the discharge coefficient discrepancy
between the orifice inflow and outflow. The curvature of the pipe wall the orifice located at may be
a significant factor. The mathematical expression of the outflow velocity and the main pipe velocity
is also worth exploring. This study will help to more accurately assess the discharge of leakage and
intrusion in the water distribution system.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, J.G.; Investigation, Y.S., T.Y., J.L. and T.Y.; Methodology, T.Y.; Project
administration, Y.S.; Supervision, T.Z.; Validation, T.Y.; Visualization, T.Y.; Writing—original draft, Y.S.;
Writing—review and editing, J.G.
Funding: This research was funded by Zhejiang Science and Technology Program (No. 2015C33007) and National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51478417 & No. 51761145022).
Water 2019, 11, 118 11 of 12

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Beuken, R.H.S.; Lavooij, C.S.W.; Bosch, A.; Schaap, P.G. Low leakage in the Netherlands confirmed.
In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium (WDSA 2006), Cincinnati,
OH, USA, 27–30 August 2006.
2. Mutikanga, H.E.; Sharma, S.; Vairavamoorthy, K. Water loss management in developing countries:
Challenges and prospects. J. Am. Water Works Assn. 2009, 101, 57–68. [CrossRef]
3. Besner, M.C.; Prevost, M.; Regli, S. Assessing the public health risk of microbial intrusion events in
distribution systems: Conceptual model, available data, and challenges. Water Res. 2011, 45, 961–979.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Yu, T.C.; Jin, H.F.; Zhang, T.Q.; Shao, Y.; Wu, X. Experimental observation on factors affecting intrusion
volumes during low or negative pressure events. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-Aqua 2016, 65, 396–406.
[CrossRef]
5. Mora-Rodriguez, J.; Delgado-Galvan, X.; Ramos, H.M.; Lopez-Jimenez, P.A. An overview of leaks and
intrusion for different pipe materials and failures. Urban Water J. 2014, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
6. Lambert, A.O. International report: Water losses management and techniques. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply
2002, 2, 1–20. [CrossRef]
7. Van Zyl, J.E.; Clayton, C.R.I. The effect of pressure on leakage in water distribution systems. Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng.-Water Manag. 2007, 160, 109–114. [CrossRef]
8. Cassa, A.M.; van Zyl, J.E.; Laubscher, R.F. A numerical investigation into the effect of pressure on holes and
cracks in water supply pipes. Urban Water J. 2010, 7, 109–120. [CrossRef]
9. Ferrante, M.; Massari, C.; Brunone, B.; Meniconi, S. Experimental Evidence of Hysteresis in the
Head-Discharge Relationship for a Leak in a Polyethylene Pipe. J. Hydraul. Eng-ASCE 2011, 137, 775–780.
[CrossRef]
10. Massari, C.; Ferrante, M.; Brunone, B.; Meniconi, S. Is the leak head-discharge relationship in polyethylene
pipes a bijective function? J. Hydraul. Res. 2012, 50, 409–417. [CrossRef]
11. De Marchis, M.; Fontanazza, C.M.; Freni, G.; Notaro, V.; Puleo, V. Experimental Evidence of Leaks in Elastic
Pipes. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 2005–2019. [CrossRef]
12. Ssozi, E.N.; Reddy, B.D.; van Zyl, J.E. Numerical Investigation of the Influence of Viscoelastic Deformation
on the Pressure-Leakage Behavior of Plastic Pipes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2016, 142, 04015057. [CrossRef]
13. Fox, S.; Collins, R.; Boxall, J. Experimental Study Exploring the Interaction of Structural and Leakage
Dynamics. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017, 143, 04016080. [CrossRef]
14. Lin, C.C. A Hybrid Heuristic Optimization Approach for Leak Detection in Pipe Networks Using Ordinal
Optimization Approach and the Symbiotic Organism Search. Water 2017, 9, 812. [CrossRef]
15. van Zyl, J.E.; Lambert, A.O.; Collins, R. Realistic Modeling of Leakage and Intrusion Flows through Leak
Openings in Pipes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017, 143. [CrossRef]
16. Mora-Rodriguez, J.; Delgado-Galvan, X.; Ortiz-Medel, J.; Ramos, H.M.; Fuertes-Miquel, V.S.;
Lopez-Jimenez, P.A. Pathogen intrusion flows in water distribution systems: According to orifice equations.
J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-AQUA 2015, 64, 857–869. [CrossRef]
17. Jan, C.-D.; Nguyen, Q.-T. Discharge Coefficient for a Water Flow through a Bottom Orifice of a Conical
Hopper. J. Irrig. Drain Eng 2010, 136, 567–572. [CrossRef]
18. McLemore, A.J.; Tyner, J.S.; Yoder, D.C.; Buchanan, J.R. Discharge Coefficients for Orifices Cut into Round
Pipes. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2013, 139, 947–954. [CrossRef]
19. Noack, C.; Ulanicki, B. Modelling of Soil Diffusibility on Leakage Characteristics of Buried Pipes.
In Proceedings of the 8th Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium, Cincinnati, OH, USA,
27–30 August 2006; pp. 1–9.
20. Collins, R.; Boxall, J. Influence of Ground Conditions on Intrusion Flows through Apertures in Distribution
Pipes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 1052–1061. [CrossRef]
21. Yu, H.F.; Li, X.G.; Sui, H.; Xu, C.C.; Li, H. Simulation of Orifice Flow Influenced by Lateral Flow in a
Trough-Type Liquid Distributor. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2013, 36, 1975–1984. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 118 12 of 12

22. Patterson, J.; Page, N.W.; Ritchie, J.B. Contraction coefficients for compressible flow through axisymmetric
orifices. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1970, 12, 405–415. [CrossRef]
23. International Organization for Standardization. Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Orifice Plates, Nozzles,
and Venturi Tubes Inserted in Circular Cross Section Conduits Running Full; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1976.
24. Wang, X.; Li, A.; Sobey, A.J.; Tan, M. Investigation into the effects of two immiscible fluids on coefficient of
discharge during Compartment Flooding. Ocean Eng. 2016, 111, 254–266. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).