ANALYSIS OF SPIRAL V O R T E X AND V E R T I C A L S L O T

V O R T E X D R O P SHAFTS ....
By Michael C. Quick,1 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: A theory is developed that is shown to give good'prediction pf th&jM|j

head-discharge relationships for two designs of vortex drop structures. The first
design is the widely used spiral guide wall design, and it is shown that control is
shared between the critical section at the top of the shaft and the vortex inducing
asymmetry of the guide wall inlet design. A second simplified and more space
saving design, called the vertical slot vortex drop structure, is also analyzed. It is
shown that, although the flow conditions and analysis are quite different, the re-
sulting head-discharge relationship is quite similar to the spiral guide wall design.
For both designs the head-discharge relationship is shown to be almost linear and
the theoretical and measured discharges are in close agreement. The proposed ver-
tical slot design produces a stable air core, similar to the spiral guide wall design,
and consequently the flow is free from risk of surging to the pipe-full flow con-
dition. The compactness of the new design is especially suitable for underground
installations.

INTRODUCTION

Discharging water safely through large vertical distances requires careful

design for energy dissipation and for flow control. Vortex drop structures
have proved to be a flexible and reliable method for achieving this safe
control and energy dissipation. In a typical vortex drop structure, the flow
is controlled at the top of the vertical shaft, where the flow is critical, and
the vortex flow produces a large, stable air core that removes any risk of
transition to pipe-full flow that could produce damaging flow surges. Below
the entry section, flow in the vertical drop shaft consists of a layer of water
that is evenly distributed around the perimeter of the shaft. At the bottom
of the shaft there is usually a rapid transition to pipe-full flow in which much
energy is dissipated. This transition is referred to as an annular hydraulic
jump (Quick 1961).
Recent papers and reviews have confirmed the usefulness of vortex drop
shafts, for example, Jain and Kennedy (1983) and Hager (1985) both quote
successful use for large spillway applications.
In this paper a complete theoretical analysis is developed for a typical
spiral guide wall drop structure. In addition, an alternative, simpler flow
geometry, referred to as the vertical slot vortex, is presented and analyzed,
and it is shown that this simpler geometry and the spiral drop structure have
very similar discharge characteristics. Although the flow pattern in the ver-
tical slot vortex is more complex, an accurate theoretical analysis is devel-
oped that requires no empirical coefficients. This second drop structure de-
sign is much more compact and is much simpler to build than the spiral wall
design. In spite of the different designs, the head discharge relationships for
both designs are very similar, which indicates that the new vertical slot de-
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Can-
ada, V6T 1W5.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 1990. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on June 7, 1988.
This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 3, March,
1990. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/90/0003-0309/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No.
24406.

309

Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit h
sign might prove to be a useful, economical alternative design, especially
for underground installations where size is a factor.

DROP SHAFT DESIGN

The spiral guide wall design follows established design as reported by

Hager (1985). The spiral wall geometry is defined by the equation,
R = CV* e (1)
which is the spiral streamline pattern defined by the ideal flow combination
of a sink and an irrotational vortex, as shown in Vallentine (1967). R is the
radius at angle 0, and C* and K* are defined by specified radii at two values
of 0.
There is still some freedom in selecting the boundary shape, and in the
present work the spiral boundary was specified by selecting the outer radius,
Rm, and the inner radius, Rt. By comparing with the ideal flow patterns, it
can be seen that this selection of Rm and /?, demands a certain fixed ratio
between the tangential, or vortex, flow and the radial flow component. The
tests appear to confirm that the real flow conformed well to this theoretical
behavior. There also appears to be some freedom in selecting the drop shaft
diameter for the selected spiral wall design. The selected size operates very
well and has proved a good choice for testing the theory. Further work is
needed to explore the effect of varying the shaft diameter and to determine
if there is an optimum design.

FIG. 1. Three Dimensional View of Vertical Slot Design

310
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit h
 For various practical reasons, it was considered desirable to try to simplify
the drop structure entrance design. For a particular application, extensive
spiral guide walls would have been very expensive to build and therefore
trial designs were examined. The slot design shown in Fig. 1 was discovered
by one of those happy accidents. It was discovered, that a simple guide wall
leading into a 90° slot cut in a vertical circular pipe gave a very satisfactory
flow pattern. A generous air core existed and the flow further down the drop
shaft looked almost identical to the flow produced by the spiral guide wall.
Clearly the fluid mechanics of the two designs are different, but the head-
discharge relationships and the resulting drop-shaft flow are surprisingly sim-
ilar. Consequently, a more detailed experimental and theoretical study of the
two designs was carried out and the results are presented in the following
sections.

SPIRAL GUIDE W A L L DROP STRUCTURE

The free spiral vortex has been analyzed by Binnie and Hookings (1948)
who were the first to show that the flow is critical at the contracted throat
section, radius b, as shown in Fig. 2. Consequently, the discharge is max-
imum for the given head and swirl conditions. However, the solution is not
complete, because the value of the circulation, T, must be specified, where
T = 2TTUaR = 2TTC (2)

It has become customary to work in terms of the vortex strength, c, rather

than the circulation, T.
In the following analysis, Binnie and Hooking's (1948) solution is ex-
tended for the case of the spiral guide wall, and it is shown that the vortex
strength can be determined in terms of the upstream water depth, the guide

PLAN SECTION A-A

FIG. 2. Spiral Guide Wall Design with Definition of Symbols

311
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
 0.06
r—7o
0.05

0.6

FIG. 3. Theoretical and Measured Head-Discharge Results for Spiral Guide Wall
Vortex Drop Structure

wall and drop shaft geometry. In this sense, the control is not totally at the
critical section, because the inlet geometry is asymmetrical, which creates
a torque, or swirl, in the approach flow. This swirl, represented by the vor-
tex strength, Cj limits the discharge by increasing the vortex core diameter,
b. In contrast to the more usual critical section where only the upstream
energy value needs to be specified, in the present situation both the upstream
energy and the upstream swirl, or vorticity, must be specified. A similar
method of analysis was presented by Ackers and Crump (1960), in which
the emphasis was on the vortex core diameter at the critical throat section.
The present approach emphasizes the dual nature of the control that is shared
between the critical section at the throat and the circulation produced by the
asymmetry of the approach flow. Also the present approach leads to a simple
procedure that can be used to calculate discharge for any specified value of
total energy, H, and for a specified geometry. The results of the theory are
compared with experimental measurements plotted in Fig. 3.
The critical control section occurs at the lip of the shaft, which is the
region of maximum contraction. Using the symbols defined in Fig. 2 and
setting the datum at the level of the lip, which is also the bed of the approach
channel, the energy on the free surface at the critical section is purely kinetic
and can be written at radius b
V2 ul
H =— + — (3)
2g 2g
where V = the vertical velocity of flow; and ub = the tangential vortex
velocity at the critical section where R = b. Assuming no energy loss, H is
also equal to the energy in the approach flow, which, if the approach ve-
locity is small, is essentially equal to the depth of the approach flow.
Assuming a free vortex distribution
c = R„Mm = bub (4)

312
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
where Rm = the maximum radius at entry, and the total velocity, u„, = the
tangential vortex velocity, ue.
Combining Eqs. 3 and 4
2\ '/2
V=[2gH~- (5)

The discharge is equal to the vertical flow at the critical section, given by
the product of the vertical velocity, V, and the flow cross section,
Q = ir(a2 - b2)V (6)
Note that no contraction coefficient is specified, and checks against mea-
sured values indicate that the swirling flow appears to suppress the contrac-
tion.
Substituting for V from Eq. 5,
/ c2\i/2
Q = TT(a2 - b2)i 2gH - - 1 (7)

Differentiating Eq. 7 and setting dQ/db = 0, so that the discharge is a

maximum at the critical section [Binnie and Hookings (1948)], the following
expression is derived for the square of the core radius, b2
c2 ± V c 4 + 16cVgff
b2 = (8)
8gff
Solving for the vertical velocity, V, from Eqs. 5 and 8, gives
r r /c2 + i6a2gH\1/2r1Y/2 (9)
V=(2QH)1/2\l - 4 1 + ( -j-^j J
For V to exist, the second term must be positive, so that
c<a V2gH (10)
i.e.
c = Ka V2g// where K < 1 (11)
and K is specified at some value less than one in order to start the calculation
procedure.
The discharge, Q, can be found by successive iteration, starting with a
value of c given by Eq. 11. This value of c is substituted into Eq. 8 to give
a first estimate of b. Also using this value of c, an estimate of the entry
velocity at the maximum radius, R,„, is calculated from

um = ^- (12)
Rm
and the swirl velocity, ub, at the critical section is estimated from

ub=C- (13)
b
An estimate, Qu of the discharge at the critical section is calculated from
313
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit ht
Eqs. 5 and 6. A second estimate, Q2, for the discharge at the inlet section
is also calculated from the estimated values of velocity and depth at the inlet
section using Eqs. 14-17 set out herein.
Assuming a free vortex distribution at section 0, the tangential velocity,
which is also the total velocity at radius R, is

u=- (14)
R
The depth, HR, at a general radius R at the entry section is, by energy
U2 c2
H
x=H-~ — == HH-T-i (15)
2g 2QR1
The discharge, Q2, at the entry section is then estimated from the integral

HBubR (16)

i.e.
c3 (\ 1: \ / W
Q2 = — I -7 ; I - He In I 1 - — I (17)
2 2
4g \R m (Rm - W) ) \ R,
This latest estimate of discharge, Q2, is used to find a second estimate of
the vertical velocity at the critical section from Eq. 6
Qi
TT(a — b)

Differentiating Eq. 5 with respect to c and holding H constant

dV c
V— = - i 09)
dc b
In finite difference terms, this equation gives an estimate of the required
increment Ac in terms of the velocity increment AV.
Vb2AV
Ac = (20)
c
in which V, b, and c are the original estimates and Ay is given by
AV=V -V (21)
The new c value is
c = c + Ac (22)
and this new value is used to restart the whole sequence of calculations by
substituting in Eq. 8 and then by resolving Eqs. 12-22 until the desired
accuracy is attained. This computation procedure has been found to be rap-
idly convergent and stable and yields theoretical values that are quite close
to the measured results, as shown in Fig. 3. A simple computer program
can be written based on the aforementioned equations and can be used to

314
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
develop and test the physical dimensions.
This iterative procedure recognizes the dual nature of the flow control that
is defined by the critical section at the top of the shaft, together with the
vorticity induced by the approach flow geometry. The two discharge esti-
mates are calculated at these two sections and iteration proceeds until these
estimates agree.
It is worth noting that the head-discharge relationship for this spiral-walled
vortex drop structure is almost linear, so that the various complex interac-
tions of the vertical and vortex flow yields a very simple result.

VERTICAL SLOT VORTEX

The design is simply a vertical pipe which has a 90° rectangular slot cut
into its top and has a vertical guide wall that leads the approach flow into
the slot, as shown in Figs. 1 and 4. In the present tests, the approach flow
was unconstrained apart from the guide wall, but a more constrained ap-
proach flow would produce a similar result.
The vortex flow, shown in Fig. 4, it is more like a weir flow, but is
modified by its own flow, that spirals around and impacts on the side of the
incoming jet. This "feedback" of the weir crest flow reduces the total flow
through the slot by raising the pressure in the merging slot flow and by
reducing the jet velocity because of the sharing of momentum as the primary
slot jet and the "feedback" secondary jet mix together. In contrast to the
spiral guide wall vortex, the critical section is now near the inlet, essentially
like a weir flow.
Referring to Fig. 4, the momentum analysis will be applied to the control
volume defined by sections 1 and 2, firstly for a pure main flow with no
returning side jet to impinge on the flow, and secondly for the side jet im-
pinging as shown in the figure.
For the pure weir flow, the upstream condition at section 1 is difficult to

; Ground Front Port of Wall'',

'. {Removed by Section) ;

SECTION A-A

FIG. 4. Plan and Section of Vertical Slot Vortex and Definition of Control Volume

315
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit h
define because of the three-dimensional nature of the flow, but it is essen-
tially equivalent to the momentum flux at section 2, which can be defined
from standard weir theory
Momentum flux at 1 s pQ0V0 (23)
where Q„ = the normal weir discharge for a simple rectangular weir; and
Va — the mean velocity for such a flow. The assumption can be justified as
follows.
Considering the situation for a simple weir flow, with no intersecting side
jet, the momentum flux across section 1 in Fig. 4 is made up of a large
pressure term together with a small velocity flux term. For the control vol-
ume bounded by sections 1 and 2, there will be additional pressure and shear
terms on the walls cd and ab of Fig. 4 , but only the pressures on ab and
the small shears on cd will act in the direction of the required momentum
flux. The net effect of the momentum flux at section 1 and these other ex-
ternal forces is equal to the momentum flux at section 2 expressed by pQ0Va.
With the introduction of the side jet, or "feedback" jet, it is assumed that
the momentum flux across section 1 will be essentially unaltered for the
same value of approach flow depth H. There will be a slight reduction in
the already small velocity term and perhaps a small change in pressure and
shear on the walls ab and cd, but there will also be partly compensating
increases in pressure in section 1. Only the pressure changes on wall ab can
influence the required component of momentum flux and it is therefore con-
sidered that, even for the reintersecting side jet, pQ„Va is a reasonably ac-
curate assessment of the momentum flux in the jet direction across section
1, where

pQoV0 = pCD - VlQh V2gh dh (24)

Je -<-
where h = the depth below the energy grade line; D = the drop shaft di-
ameter; CD = the coefficient of discharge; and the dimension e = Vl/2g
(Fig. 4). Because of jet similarity, it is customary to absorb the V^/2g into
a well defined discharge coefficient CD, giving, i.e.

pQoV„ = PCD^gH2 (25)

Now turning to the flow condition when there is a "feedback" jet im-
pinging on the main flow, the momentum equation in the direction of the
main entering weir flow can be written as

PQ.V„ = pqmVdh + p(qm + qs)Vdh + pqsVsdh (26)

Je JA JO
where the conditions at section 1 are still represented by pQ„V0. The velocity,
V, is the average velocity at section 2 and qm is the flow per unit depth
entering from the approach flow. The velocity Vs is the average velocity of
the returning side jet and qs is the discharge per unit depth of this returning
side jet.
The terms on the right-hand side represent: (1) The momentum flux above
the level at which the side jet impinges on the main jet; (2) the combined
316

Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit htt
momentum of the main and side jet flows; and (3) the force exerted by the
side jet on the main jet, in the direction of flow. The dimension, A, is the
depth to the jet intersection point, Fig. 4, and the depth of the free surface,
e, is Vl/2g.
It should be noted that because the side jet is at right angles to the main
jet, the side jet has no momentum in the main jet direction. This is a sim-
plification that occurs for this particular slot geometry. It is assumed that
the side jet mixes with the main jet and in the process the main jet mo-
mentum is shared with the side jet.
The final term, the force on the main jet, requires some justification be-
cause it is assumed that the total momentum of the side jet produces a dis-
tributed pressure within the main jet. On impact with the main jet, the side
jet velocity is reduced to zero and there is a corresponding increase in pres-
sure equal to the original side jet momentum, pqsVs. This pressure is om-
nidirectional and therefore produces a force component at section 2 of pqsVs
that opposes the main jet.
The four terms of Eq. 26 are integrated as follows:

pQoVo = PCD^QH2 (27)

D f D ,
pqmVdh = pCD- 2ghdh = pCfl - gA2 (28)
^ Jo *•
H *H

P(qm + qs)Vdh = pCD- k22ghdh = pCD - k2g(H2 -A2) (29)

'A 2 JA 2
In this integral, it is assumed that the main jet flow, qm, and the side jet
flow, qs, combine into a total flow that still occupies the same cross section.
It is assumed that the velocity of flow is uniform and is reduced by a velocity
factor, k, that is constant over the depth. The evaluation of this k factor will
be explained later.
D f D
pqsVdh = pCD - a 2ghdh = pCD - ag(H -A)2 (30)
^ Jo *•

This final integral contains a reduction factor, a, because qs, the returning
side jet, is only part of the original incoming flow. This qs flow arises from
the upper part of the flow entering the slot, which impinges on the curved
wall of the pipe and splits into two distinct portions, an upper "splash" por-
tion, called the splash jet, and the lower main jet. This lower main jet drops
more quickly and, unless H is very large, does not re-intersect the incoming
jet. An expression for the a factor will be derived later.
Gathering up the terms for Eq. 26 from Eqs. 2 7 - 3 0 , and canceling the
common factors, the final form is
k2(H2 - A2) + (1 + a)A2 - 2otAH - (1 - a)H2 = 0 (31)
This equation is used to calculate k when A, H, and a are specified.

CALCULATION OF TOTAL FLOW

The total flow is defined by

317
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit ht
 FRACTION OF CROSS SECTION

FIG. 5. Definition of Main and Side Jet Fractions for Calculating Factor/

Q,
'f.H*[ §qm (32)

Below the intersection of the splash jet with the main jet, Fig. 5 defines
the flow through a horizontal slice. The main jet flow, hqm, occupies a frac-
tion (1 - / ) of the total cross section, while the returning side jet, hqs,
occupies the remainder. The following equation can be written by recog-
nizing that hqs arises from the incoming flow at a distance A above the sec-
tion under consideration, and a fraction, a, of this flow forms the returning

D
§qs = CD-a V2g<7! - A) hh . (33)

But Sqs can also be written as

D
H =fCD-k Vlgh M (34)

Equating Eqs. 33 and 34 and solving f o r /

_ a Ih-A
(35)

At this same horizontal section, the main jet flow, bqm, is

8<7m = (1 ~f)CD - k V2gh bh (36)

Substituting for/from Eq. 35

D \ a jh-A
8^m = CD 1 2ghhh (37)

Also recognizing that above the intersection point, A

318
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
 D ,
Sft - V2g/j dh (38)
2
Substituting in Eq. 32, from Eqs. 37 and 38

07-=CD-j V2ghdh+\ (k V2gh - a V2g(fc - A))dh \ (39)

i.e.
2 r)
fir = - CD - V2g {A3/2 + k(H3/2 - A3/2) - a(ff - A)3/2} (40)

It now remains to define A, k, and a in terms of the pipe diameter, D,

and the head, H.

a FACTOR

The entering main jet collides with the back wall of the pipe and divides
into an upwards splash jet and a downwards main jet. An estimate of this
subdivision can be made by comparing with the two dimensional problem
shown in Fig. 6.
By vertical momentum at the wall
QV sin 6 = QdV - QUV. (41)
where Q = the incident flow that splits into an up component, Qu, and a
down component, Qd, so that
Q = Qu + Qd (42)

FIG. 6. Splash-Jet Fraction and Definition of a Factor

319
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit htt
r
Solving Eqs. 41 and 42 for Qu

— = - (1 - sin 8) = a (43)
2 2
where a = the flow reduction factor for the splash flow, introduced in Eq.
30.
The angle 8 is defined from the free fall of the jet, where, as defined in
Fig. 6
u, « VgHc ••• (44)
in which Hc = the critical depth.
The time, t, for the jet to reach the wall is,

-D
f = P— (45)
Uo
where (3 = the fraction of the circumference traversed by the jet.
The vertical velocity, v, of the jet at the wall will be

g(3-£>
v = gt = —== (46)
'gffc
The angle 8 is defined from Eqs. 4 4 and 4 6 by
IT
-D
v 2 3 D
tan 6 = - = (3 — = - PIT - (47)
u„ Hc 4 H
where, approximately, Hc » 2 / 3 H. It would b e possible to reevaluate Hc
iteratively, but the results indicate that this is not necessary.
For the given geometry, which consists of three quarters of a circle, the
(3 value is of the order 0 . 7 5 , allowing 0 to be calculated for any specified
H value. Knowing 8, Eq. 4 3 defines the a value.

J E T INTERSECTION DEPTH, A

The two-dimensional j e t specified in Fig. 6 can also b e used as a basis

for calculating A , the jet intersection depth. With perfect energy conserva-
tion, water in the upward splash j e t would rise to the height of the free
surface, H, where the velocity is zero. For the vortex flow in the circular
pipe, the splash flow continues to move around the pipe with horizontal
velocity, ua, so that the maximum height of splash is ul/2g below the orig-
inal surface level, H0. This maximum height is reached halfway around the
pipe, where the back wall is perpendicular to the incident direction, and this
is confirmed by experimental observation. Consequently, the time of fall
before reaching the intersection point is given b y Eq. 4 5 .
The value of A is then computed from free fall
A=
\tf (48)
320

Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
 , 1 ., ,D2
A = - trir — , (49)
8 Hc

AHC = - p V l > 2 (50)

The right-hand side is a constant for the system, so that the product, AHC,
is constant. Writing Hc equal to 2 / 3 H,
3 1
- - pVD- (51)
2 \8

SUMMARY OF CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR DISCHARQE, QT

In step form, the calculations are carried out as follows:

1. The (3 factor is defined from the geometry, and is 0.75 in this situation
because the flow traverses three quarters of a circle.
2. The jet angle, 6, associated with the upward jet splash is calculated from
Eq. 47.
3. The flow reduction factor, a, for a splash flow is calculated from Eq. 43.
4. Eq. 51 is used to calculate A, the depth to the jet intersection point.
5. The velocity reduction factor, k, is calculated from Eq. 31, utilizing the
a, A, and H values.
6. Finally QT is calculated from Eq. 40.

The calculated and measured values of the flow are plotted in Fig. 7,
together with the curve for pure weir flow. At low values of H, the flow
becomes simple weir flow because there is no reintersection of the flow with

0.06

0.0 5

J L__L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
HEAD(m)

FIG. 7. Theoretical and Measured Head-Discharge Results for the Vertical Slot
Vortex Drop Structure

321
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http:
the entering jet. As H increases, there is a steady divergence from the weir-
type flow, and it will be noted that the vertical slot vortex discharge is lin-
early related to the head, H. This linear relationship contrasts with the three-
halves power law for weir flow. It can also be seen that the theoretical flows
are in excellent agreement with the measured values. It should be noted that
the only empirical coefficient used is Cd, the discharge coefficient for a rect-
angular weir: all the other coefficients and parameters, such as a, (3, K, and
A, are calculated, admittedly with some approximations. Of course, it could
be argued that Cd is also theoretically derived from the well-known con-
traction coefficient value of TT/(IT + 2).

EXPERIMENTS

The model drop structure tests were carried out using 200-mm (8-in.) di-
ameter drop shafts mounted in a 900-mm-wide by 600-mm-deep channel.
The spiral guide wall or the guide wall for the slot vortex were set up within
this wider channel. Leading dimensions are set out on Figs. 2 and 4. A
plexiglass drop shaft was used so that the drop shaft flow behavior could be
observed. The apparatus was set up so that flow discharged into a large basin
that was used as a volumetric tank for measuring the discharge. The dis-
charge measurements are therefore quite accurate and reliable. Measure-
ments of surface profile and velocities were also made so that various the-
oretical predictions could be checked. The primary results presented here are
the various head-discharge measurements.

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The experimental results show that both designs of drop structure operate
satisfactorily and produce very similar flow conditions in the vertical drop
shaft. This statement raises the question of just what is satisfactory or un-
satisfactory behavior. Drop shafts are required to dissipate energy of the
falling water safely and with little risk of damage to the discharge tunnels.
Damage can be caused by high velocity impact of falling water. A serious
risk is the entrainment of air into the downstream flow, especially if there
is a horizontal discharge tunnel, as pointed out by Kennedy et al. (1988)
and earlier by Binnie (1938) when discussing the so-called morning glory
spillway design. Entrained air can become pressurized downstream and be-
come quite explosive when suddenly released. Sudden priming of the ver-
tical shaft from air-core to pipe-full conditions can cause serious surging of
the flow and gives rise to shock pressures. In general, a good stable air core
prevents most of these problems. With an air core present, the control is at
the top of the shaft and this limits the discharge and prevents surging.
A generous size of air core allows air to pass up or down the shaft, and
generally this large air core eliminates much of the air entrainment problems,
as reported by Jain and Kennedy (1983). However, if the shaft extends to
some considerable depth, the fast-moving water entrains considerable quan-
tities of air. This air can be carried downstream into horizontal tunnels after
the flow undergoes the transition to pipe-full flow at the bottom of the shaft.
This transition to pipe-full flow often involves the formation of an annular
hydraulic jump, as reported by the writer (Quick 1961).
It can therefore be concluded that both designs of drop structure behave
322

Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
 0.06

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

HEAD ( m )

FIG. 8. Comparison of Head-Discharge Results for Spiral Guide Wall and Ver-
tical Slot Drop Structures

well and in a very similar fashion, as can be seen from Fig. 8. The theo-
retical predictions agree well with the measured values, as shown in Figs.
3 and 7, and are therefore valid for design application. The vertical slot
design offers a useful advantage, because it takes up much less space and
is simpler to construct. This compactness of design could be a valuable at-
tribute for underground installation or where space is at a premium.
For preliminary design purposes, the discharges for geometrically similar
boundaries can be approximately scaled using
& 2i Hi
= \i Hi'
(52)

For the geometries used in this study, a combined equation for either the
log spiral or the slot is approximately
Q = 1A2DISH m3/s • (53)
Final design values should be computed by programming the equations
set out above. A copy of a program, written in Turbobasic for an IBM PC,
is available at nominal cost and user's risk. The user should carry out ad-
equate checks on the calculation accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work was started when investigating suitable designs of drop shaft
for flooding a salt mine for Cargil Corporation of New York. Further ex-
perimental investigations were made to confirm the theoretical predictions.
The first preliminary set of experiments was carried out by Yves Crits, an
IASTE summer student from Belgium, and the second, more complete set
of experiments, was carried out as a bachelors degree project by Steve Dent,
Jody Evans, Don Demque, and Ken Tomczyk. The thorough and enthu-
siastic work of all these students is warmly acknowledged.
323
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit h
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Ackers, P., and Crump, E. S. (1960). "The Vortex drop." Proc. of the Inst, of Civ.
Engrs., 16, Aug., 433-442.
Binnie, A. M., and Hookings, G. A. (1948). "Experiments on whirlpools." Proc.
of the Royal Society, Series A, 194, 398-413.
Binnie, G. M. (1938). "Experiments on bellmouth and siphon spillways." J. Inst,
of Civ. Engrs., 10, Nov., 65-90.
Hager, W. H. (1985). "Head-discharge relation for vortex shaft." J. Hydr. Engrg.,
ASCE, 3(6), 1015-1020.
Jain, S. C , and Kennedy, J. F. (1983). "Vortex-flow dropstructures for the Mil-
waukee metropolitan sewage district inline storage system." IIHR Report No. 264,
Iowa Inst, of Hydr. Res., Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Kennedy, J. F., Jain, S. C , and Quinones, H. R. (1988). "Helicoidal ramp drop-
shaft." J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 114(3), 315-325.
Quick, M. C. (1961). "The annular hydraulic jump." Civ. Engrg. and Public Works
Review, 56(662), 1176-1179.
Vallentine, H. R. (1967), Applied hydrodynamics. Butterworths Press, London, 2nd
Ed., 117.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = depth to the jet intersection point;

a = drop shaft radius;
b = air core radius at critical section;
c = vortex strength;
Ac = finite increment in c;
D = drop shaft diameter (D = la);
d = splash jet flow reduction factor;
e = free surface depth at entry, equal to V*/2g;
H = total energy of approach flow;
h = depth below energy guide line;
Hc = critical depth at entry;
HR = depth at radius R;
K = constant (<1.0) to start iteration;
k = velocity reduction factor;
Q = volumetric discharge rate;
QuQi = different estimates of the spiral guide wall vortex flow;
Qo = weir discharge for a simple rectangular weir;
QT = total flow for vertical slot vortex;
qm = flow per unit depth entering from approach flow;
<ls = flow per unit depth of returning side jet;
R = general radius;
Rm = maximum radius at entry to spiral;
t = time for jet to traverse around wall;
ub = tangential vortex velocity at radius b;
um = total velocity at entry radius Rm;
uV0 = velocity at critical entry section;
= vertical flow velocity at critical section;
V = average velocity at section 2 of vertical slot vortex;
V = new estimate of vertical velocity at critical section of spiral guide
wall vortex;
324
Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
 Va = mean velocity for a simple rectangular weir;
Vs — average velocity of the returning side jet of the vertical slot
vortex;
Aw = finite increment in V;
a = splash jet flow reduction factor;
P = fraction of circumference traversed by the jet; and
0 = angle of jet at wall.

Downloaded 04 May 2011 to 95.131.110.102. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http