PHYSICAL  

HYDRAULIC  MODEL  INVESTIGATION  OF  CRITICAL  

SUBMERGENCE  FOR  RAISED  PUMP  INTAKES  

Author:  SH  Kleynhans  

Professional  status:  Pr  Eng  

SAICE  affiliation:  Member  

Telephone:  021  –  526  5776  

Fax:  021  –  526  9500  

E-­mail:  Stephan.kleynhans@aurecongroup.com  

Postal  address:  PO  Box  1143,  Kuils  River,  7579  

   

1  
Abstract  

Design  guidelines  for  pump  inlet  designs  require  that  the  suction  bell  to  be  located  not  

higher   than   0.5   times   the   suction   bell   diameter   (D)   above   the   floor.     This   is   not  

achievable  in  sand  trap  canals,  which  form  an  integral  part  of  large  river  abstraction  

works,  where  the  pump  intakes  are  located  at  the  end  of  the  sand  trap  canals.    The  

canals   need   to   be   flushed   by   opening   a   gate,   typically   1.5   m   high,   that   is   located  

downstream  of  the  pump  intake.    This  requires  the  suction  bell  be  raised  to  not  interfere  

with  the  flushing  operation,  which  leads  to  the  question  –  what  impact  does  the  raising  

of  the  suction  bell  have  on  the  minimum  required  submergence?    

A   physical   hydraulic   model   constructed   at   1:10   scale   was   used   to   determine   the  

submergence  required  to  prevent  types  2,  5  and  6  vortices.    The  tests  were  undertaken  

for  four  suction  bell  configurations.      

It  became  evident  from  the  experimental  test  results  that  the  required  submergence  

increased  markedly  when  the  suction  bell  was  raised  higher  than  a  certain  level  above  

the   floor.   It   was   concluded   that   this   “discontinuity”   in   the   required   submergence  

occurred   for   all   the   suction   bell   configuration   types   when   the   ratio   between   the  

prototype  bell  inlet  velocity  and  the  approach  canal  velocity  was  approximately  6.0  or  

higher.  

   

2  
INTRODUCTION  

Background  to  the  research  project  

The   design   of   pump   intakes   is   often   based   on   published   design   guidelines   and  

empirical  formulae  that  were  derived  from  physical  model  or  scaled  prototype  studies.    

In  a  few  instances,  designs  are  also  based  on  existing  pump  intakes  that  are  operating  

satisfactorily,  provided  that  similar  site  conditions  exist.    These  design  guidelines  and  

empirical  formulas  have  specifically  been  developed  to  deal  with  hydraulic  phenomena  

that  could  cause  problems  at  pump  intakes.      

It  is,  however,  not  always  practical  to  meet  all  the  recommended  dimensions  published  

for  pump  intakes  (Hydraulic  Institute,  1998).    One  such  example  is  at  abstraction  works  

on  rivers  with  high  sediment  concentrations,  which  typically  consist  of  a  weir,  a  boulder  

trap,  a  gravel  trap,  sand  traps  and  a  fishway  (Basson,  2011).    The  pump  intakes  to  the  

raw  water  pumps  are  located  at  the  end  of  the  sand  traps.    In  order  to  effectively  flush  

the  sand  trap,  the  raised  downstream  gate  opening  should  be  at  least  1.5  m  and  the  

pump   intake   should   be   located   to   above   this   level   to   not   interfere   with   the   flushing  

operation  (Basson,  2010;;  Basson,  2011).    The  required  gate  opening  will,  however,  

often  exceed  the  recommended  clearance  between  the  underside  of  the  suction  bell  

and   the   canal   floor,   which   should   be   limited   to   0.3   –   0.5   times   the   diameter   of   the  

suction  bell.  

Motivation  for  the  study  

Table  1  summarises  the  dimensions  proposed  for  the  Lower  Thukela  and  Vlieëpoort  

sand  trap  canals  in  comparison  with  the  dimensions  recommended  in  the  American  

National  Standard  for  Pump  Intake  Design  (Hydraulic  Institute,  1998).  

3  
It  is  evident  from  Table  1  that,  for  the  Vlieëpoort  and  Lower  Thukela  sand  trap  canals,  

dimension   variables   “B”   and   “C”   are   not   in   accordance   with   the   dimensions  

recommended  in  the  American  National  Standard  for  Pump  Intake  Design  (Hydraulic  

Institute,  1998).    This  leads  to  the  question  –  what  impact  does  the  raising  of  the  suction  

bell   have   on   the   minimum   submergence   required   to   prevent   air   entrainment?     This  

question  is  the  motivation  for  this  study.  

Table  1:    Recommended  dimensions  versus  proposed  dimensions  for  

Vlieëpoort  and  Lower  Thukela  sand  trap  canals  

Dimension   Dimension   Vlieëpoort  sand  trap  canal  (2   Lower  Thukela  sand  trap  canal  
3 3
variable   description   m /s  per    pump)   (0.467  m /s  per  pump)  

Recommended   Proposed   Recommended   Proposed  

(1) (1)
dimension     dimension   dimension     dimension  

(mm)   (mm)   (mm)   (mm)  

D   Inlet  bell  diameter   1  500   1  200   700   700  

W   Entrance  width  of   3  000   2  400   1400   2  000  

pump  inlet  bay    

B   Distance  from  the   1  125   2  600   525   1  500  

back  wall  to  the  

pump  inlet  

centreline  

C   Distance  between   750   1  500   350   1  500  

the  inlet  bell  and  

the  floor  

S   Minimum  pump   2  200   2  180   1  450   1  200  

inlet  bell  

submergence  

(1)   Recommended  dimensions  refer  to  the  dimensions  recommended  by  the  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998).  

4  
  

Objective  of  study  

The  objective  of  the  study  was  to  determine,  by  means  of  a  physical  hydraulic  model  

of  the  Vlieëpoort  sand  trap  canal,  the  minimum  submergence  levels  required  to  prevent  

air  entrainment  for  suction  bell  inlets  located  at  different  heights  above  the  canal  floor.    

The  measured  submergence  levels  were  compared  against  the  design  guidelines  that  

are  available  to  calculate  minimum  submergence,  after  which  recommendations  were  

formulated   for   the   design   criteria   to   be   applied   for   raised   pump   intake   installations,  

which  are  similar  in  geometry  to  the  physical  model.    

METHODOLOGY  

Modelling  scenarios  

The  following  variables  were  considered  in  the  design  of  the  overall  study  methodology  

and  determined  the  scenarios  to  be  tested:  

•   The   height   of   the   suction   bell   above   the   floor   level   to   be   altered   to   test   various  

heights;;  

•   The  flow  rate  to  be  varied  from  1.0  m3/s  to  2.5  m3/s  per  pump,  or  alternatively  the  

bell  inlet  velocities  to  be  varied  from  0.9  m/s  to  2.4  m/s;;    

•   The   preferred   suction   bell   configuration   to   be   determined,   as   Sulzer   Brothers  

Limited  (1987)  recommend  the  use  of  a  slanted  bell  for  flows  exceeding  1.0  m3/s;;  

and  

•   The  radius  of  the  suction  pipe  bend  to  be  determined,  as  it  determines  the  height  

of  the  pump  volute.      

Table  2  summarises  the  modelling  scenarios  analysed,  based  on  the  variables  listed  

above.  

5  
Table  2:    Modelling  scenarios  

Suction  bell   Radius  of  suction  bend   Bell  inlet  velocities   Height  above   Bell  type  
(1)
type   (m/s)   canal  floor   reference    

Flat  bell     1  x  diameter  of  suction   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D;;  1.0D;;  1.5D   1A  

pipe  

Flat  bell   2  x  diameter  of  suction   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D;;  1.0D;;  1.5D   1B  

pipe  

Slanted  bell   1  x  diameter  of  suction   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D;;  1.0D;;  1.5D   2A  

pipe  

Slanted  bell   2  x  diameter  of  suction   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D;;  1.0D;;  1.5D   2B  

pipe  

(1)   The  bell  type  reference  shown  in  the  last  column  is  used  in  the  report  to  refer  to  the  different  bell  configurations.  

The  water  level  at  which  air  was  entrained  was  established  in  the  physical  model  for  

each  of  the  72  scenarios  listed  in  Table  2.  

The  formation  of  vortices  is  unsteady  and  unstable,  i.e.  vortices  form  intermittently  at  

different  locations  near  the  pump  intake  and  vary  in  strength  over  time.    Therefore,  the  

water   levels   at   which   the   different   types   of   vortices   form,   required   subjective  

interpretation  through  observation  of  the  predominant  type  of  vortex  present  at  a  given  

water  level.    As  these  subjective  interpretations  might  impact  on  the  reliability  of  the  

test  results,  and  in  order  to  verify  the  reliability  and  repeatability  of  the  tests,  the  tests  

shown  in  Table  3  were  repeated  three  times.    

Table  3:    Repeat  tests  performed  to  verify  reliability  of  results  

Suction  bell   Radius  of  suction  bend   Bell  inlet  velocities  (m/s)   Height  above  canal  

type   floor  

Flat  bell     2  x  diameter  of  suction  pipe   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D  

Slnted  bell   2  x  diameter  of  suction  pipe   0.9;;  1.2;;  1.5;;  1.8;;  2.1;;  2.4   0.5D  

6  
LITERATURE  REVIEW  

The  purpose  of  the  literature  review  is  to  (a)  review  the  classifications  and  strengths  of  

vortices,   (b)   investigate   the   likely   scale   impacts   on   the   formation   of   vortices   in   a  

physical  hydraulic  model,  and  (c)  obtain  design  guidelines  for  the  calculation  of  critical  

submergence  to  avoid  the  entrainment  of  air.      

Fundamentals  and  theory  of  vortex  formation  

Vortex  classification  and  strengths  

Vortices  are  generally  classified  as  (a)  free  surface  vortices,  starting  from  the  free  water  

surface,   or   (b)   sub-­surface   vortices,   starting   from   the   floor,   side   or   back   wall   of   the  

intake  structure.  

The   Alden   Research   Laboratory   (Hydraulic   Institute,   1998)   developed   a   visual  

classification  system  to  classify  the  strength  of  vortices.    Figure  1  shows  the  strength  

classifications  for  free  surface  and  sub-­surface  vortices.  

The  focus  of  this  study  will  be  on  free  surface  vortices,  as  the  objective  is  to  determine  

the  minimum  water  level  required  to  prevent  air  entrainment.      

7  
  

Figure  1:    Free  surface  and  sub-­surface  vortex  strength  classification  

(Hydraulic  Institute,  1998,  pg.  26)  

Acceptance  criteria  for  pump  intakes  

The  acceptance  criteria  for  physical  hydraulic  model  studies  of  pump  intakes,  as  per  

the  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998),  are:  

•   Free   surface   vortices   entering   the   pump   must   be   less   severe   than   Type   3,   on  

condition   that   they   occur   less   than   10%   of   the   time   or   only   for   infrequent   pump  

operating  conditions;;  

•   Sub-­surface  vortices  entering  the  pump  must  be  less  severe  than  Type  2;;  

•   The  average  swirl  angle  must  be  less  than  five  (5)  degrees.    Swirl  angles  of  up  to  

seven  (7)  degrees  will  be  accepted,  but  only  if  they  occur  less  than  10%  of  the  time;;  

and  

8  
•   The  time-­averaged  velocities  at  points  in  the  throat  of  the  bell  inlet  must  be  within  

10%  of  the  average  axial  velocity  in  the  throat  of  the  bell  inlet.  

Impacts  of  scale  effects  in  physical  models  

Similarity  laws  

The  model  for  the  study  of  the  Vlieëpoort  pump  intake  is  an  open  channel  with  a  free  

surface.    Gravitational  forces  are  the  dominant  forces  and  the  Froude  Law  will  be  the  

criterion  to  be  satisfied.    It  is  also  recommended  that  the  minimum  Reynolds  and  Weber  

Numbers  should  be  3  x  104  and  120,  respectively,  to  minimise  the  scale  effects  due  to  

viscosity  and  surface  tension.  

A   scale   of   1:10   was   proposed   for   the   physical   model   study.     The   minimum   scaled  

Reynolds  and  Weber  Numbers  will  be  3.4  x  104  and  133  respectively  for  a  prototype  

bell  inlet  velocity  of  0.9  m/s,  whereas  the  Reynolds  and  Weber  Numbers  will  increase  

to  9.1  x  104  and  947,  respectively,  for  a  prototype  bell  inlet  velocity  of  2.4  m/s.      

Design  guidelines  to  calculate  critical  submergence  

Various   design   guidelines   have   been   published   for   the   calculation   of   critical  

submergence.    Figure  2  provides  a  graphical  presentation  on  the  equations  proposed  

by  different  authors  to  calculate  critical  submergence  for  a  1.2  m  diameter  inlet  bell  and  

a  range  of  inlet  bell  velocities.  

9  
 Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity
4.50

4.00

3.50
9
Critical  submergence  (m)

3.00
2
3
2.50

2.00 8

1
1.50
4 7 5
1.00 6

0.50

0.00
0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)

1.  Prosser  &  Sulzer 2.  Hydraulic  institute  &  Jones 3.  Peterson  and  Noble
4.  Knauss 5.  Gorman  Rupp 6.  KSB
7.  Metcalf  &  Eddy 8.  Flygt 9.  D  Werth
 

Figure  2:    Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity  

It  is  evident  from  Figure  2  that  large  variations  exist  between  the  critical  submergence  

recommended  by  the  different  authors.    The  experimental  test  results  of  the  preferred  

suction  bell  configuration  were  compared  with  the  above  published  design  guidelines  

for   the   calculation   of   minimum   submergence   levels,   in   order   to   determine   which  

equation  or  guideline  should  be  used  for  raised  pump  intake  configurations.  

EXPERIMENTAL  SET-­UP  AND  TEST  PROCEDURES  

Experimental  set-­up  

A   1:10   geometric   scale   was   chosen   for   the   physical   model   study   as   it   satisfies   the  

minimum   Reynolds   (i.e.   3   x   104)   and   Weber   (i.e.   120)   Numbers   to   ensure   that   the  

effects  of  viscosity  and  surface  tension  could  be  neglected  for  the  range  of  inlet  bell  

velocities  to  be  tested.      

10  
Figures   3   and   4   show   a   plan   and   sectional   view,   respectively,   of   the   scale   model  

based  on  the  prototype  dimensions  of  the  Vlieëpoort  sand  trap  canal.      

Figure  3:    Plan  view  of  physical  model  

Figure  4:    Sectional  view  of  physical  model  

The  model  consisted  of  a  stilling  basin,  an  approach  canal,  a  suction  bell  and  pipework,  

a  pump  and  the  delivery  pipework.    The  canal  was  240  mm  wide,  1  000  mm  high  and  

4  000  mm  long.    The  front  end  of  the  canal  was  constructed  as  an  adjustable  steel  

sluice  to  raise  and  lower  the  suction  bell.    The  inlet  bell  diameter  was  120  mm.      

A  variable  speed  drive  was  connected  to  the  electric  pump  motor  to  alter  the  pump  

speed.    A  50  mm  diameter  magnetic  flow  meter  was  installed  on  the  discharge  pipeline.    

A  photograph  of  the  model  is  shown  in  Figure  5.  

11  
  

Figure  5:    View  of  pump  model  

As  shown  in  Table  2,  four  suction  bell  configurations  were  tested.    A  photograph  of  the  

manufactured  suction  bells  is  shown  in  Figure  6.  

Figure  6:    Rear  view  of  suction  bell  configurations  (from  left  to  right:  Type  1B,  

Type  1A,  Type  2B,  Type  2A)  

12  
Test  procedure  

Submergence  for  different  types  of  vortices    

The  objective  was  to  determine  the  minimum  water  level  at  which  no  air  entrainment  

occurs,   which   corresponds   to   a   Type   5   vortex   (refer   to   Figure   1   for   the   strength  

classification  of  vortices).    The  acceptance  criteria  for  physical  hydraulic  model  studies  

of  pump  intakes  (Hydraulic  Institute,  1998),  however,  requires  that  free  surface  vortices  

entering  the  pump  must  be  less  severe  than  Type  3  and  should  occur  less  than  10%  

of  the  time.      

Type   3   vortices   are   classified   as   “coherent   dye   core”   vortices,   which   require   the  

injection   of   dye   to   identify   their   presence.     Vortices,   however,   vary   in   strength   and  

duration  over  time  for  a  given  water  level  and  flow,  making  it  difficult  to  inject  the  dye  

at   the   correct   position   and   time.     It   therefore   was   decided   to   rather   compare   the  

submergence  levels  for  the  four  different  pump  intake  configurations  on  the  types  of  

vortices   that   can   be   determined   more   easily   by   visual   assessment,   and   that   dye  

injection  should  only  be  done  for  the  preferred  pump  intake  configuration  to  determine  

the  water  level  at  which  Type  3  vortices  occur.  

The  types  of  vortices  that  are  the  easiest  to  observe  visually  are:  

•   Type  2  (surface  dimple);;  

•   Type  5  (vortex  pulling  air  bubbles  to  intake);;  and  

•   Type  6  (full  air  core  to  intake).  

EXPERIMENTAL  TEST  RESULTS  

Experimental  test  results  

Figures  7,  8  and  9  show  the  measured  prototype  Type  2,  5  and  6  submergence  levels,  

for   each   of   the   different   suction   bell   heights   above   the   channel   floor,   against   the  

prototype  bell  inlet  velocities  for  the  Type  1B  suction  bell  configuration.  

13  
  

Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  0.5D  (60  mm)  above  floor  (Test  No  1)
1.8

1.6
Type  2
1.4

1.2
Submergence  (m)

1.0

0.8
Type  5

0.6

0.4

0.2 Type  6

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 
Figure  7:    Type  1B  bellmouth,  0.5D  above  floor  –  prototype  type  submergence  

Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  1.0D  (120  mm)  above  floor  

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Type  2
1.2
Submergence  (m)

1.0

0.8

0.6
Type  5
Type  6
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 
Figure  8:    Type  1B  bellmouth,  1.0D  above  floor  –  prototype  type  submergence  

14  
 Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  1.5D  (180  mm)  above  floor
3.0

2.5

Type  2

2.0
Submergence  (m)

1.5
Type  5

1.0

0.5

Type  6

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 
Figure  9:    Type  1B  bellmouth,  1.5D  above  floor  –  prototype  type  submergence  
 
Repeatability  of  tests  

It  was  concluded  from  the  repeat  tests  that  the  water  level  measurements  for  the  Type  

2,  5  and  6  vortices  can  be  repeated  with  a  reasonably  high  level  of  confidence.    It  was  

also   established   that,   for   Type   2   vortices,   the   maximum   difference   between   the  

minimum  and  maximum  water  levels  for  all  the  flows  is  18%  (i.e.  for  a  bell  inlet  velocity  

of  2.4  m/s).    This  implies  that,  should  the  critical  submergence  for  the  prototype  design  

be  accepted  as  the  water  level  recorded  for  Type  2  vortices,  a  safety  factor  of  18%  

should   be   allowed   if   only   one   water   level   measurement   was   taken,   to   cater   for   the  

possible  inaccuracies  and  subjective  measurements  associated  with  physical  model  

studies  

Analysis  of  experimental  test  results  

The   motivation   for   the   study   is   the   question   –   what   impact   does   the   raising   of   the  

suction  bell  have  on  the  minimum  submergence  required  to  prevent  air  entrainment?    

15  
In  answer  to  this  question,  the  submergence  value  required  for  each  of  the  measured  

vortex   strengths   was   plotted   against   bell   inlet   velocity   for   the   different   suction   bell  

heights.  

Comparison  of  submergence  for  different  suction  bell  heights  

The   prototype   submergence   required   for   Type   2,   5   and   6   vortices   for   the   Type   1B  

suction  bell  configuration  situated  at  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  above  the  canal  

floor  level  is  shown  in  Figures  10,  11  and  12  respectively.      

Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  0.5D  -­‐ 1.5D  above  floor,  Type  2  vortex
3.0

2.5

1.5D

2.0
Submergence  (m)

1.5
0.5D
1.0D

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 

Figure  10:  Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  required  for  Type  2  vortices  at  

bell  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  

16  
 Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  0.5D  -­‐ 1.5D  above  floor,  Type  5  vortex
1.8

1.6
1.5D
1.4

1.2
Submergence  (m)

1.0
0.5D

0.8

0.6

0.4 1.0D

0.2

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 

Figure  11:    Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  required  for  Type  5  vortices  at  

bell  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  

Submergence:  Type  1B  bellmouth,  0.5D  -­‐ 1.5D  above  floor,  Type  6  vortex
1.6

1.4

1.2
1.5D

1.0
Submergence  (m)

0.8

0.6
0.5D

0.4

1.0D
0.2

0.0
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)
 

Figure  12:    Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  required  for  Type  6  vortices  at  

bell  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  

17  
It  is  evident  from  the  results  shown  in  Figures  10  to  12  that:  

•   The  submergence  required  for  suction  bells  located  at  0.5D  and  1.0D  is  fairly  similar  

for  the  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices;;  

•   The  submergence  required  for  Type  2  vortices,  where  the  suction  bell  is  located  at  

1.5  D,  is  much  higher  than  that  required  for  suction  bells  located  at  0.5D  and  1.0D  

above  the  floor;;  and  

•   The  submergence  required  for  Type  5  and  6  vortices  is  very  similar,  irrespective  of  

the  height  of  the  suction  bell,  provided  that  the  bell  inlet  velocities  are  1.2  m/s  or  

lower.    At  bell  inlet  velocities  of  1.5  m/s  and  higher,  the  submergence  required  for  

Type   5   and   6   vortices   for   a   suction   bell   situated   at   1.5D   becomes   substantially  

higher  than  that  required  for  the  0.5D  and  1.0D  suction  bells.  

The  aspects  that  stood  out  from  the  analysis  of  the  physical  model  test  results  are  that  

(a)  the  required  submergence  for  flat  suction  bell  configurations  (i.e.  Types  1A  and  1B)  

substantially  increases  when  the  suction  bell  is  raised  above  1.0D,  and  (b)  the  same  

occurrence  is  evident  for  slanted  suction  bell  configurations  (i.e.  Types  2A  and  2B),  but  

for   heights   higher   than   0.5D   above   the   floor.     This   leads   to   the   question   –   what   is  

causing  this  “break-­away”  or  increased  submergence  when  raising  the  pump  intakes  

to  above  a  certain  level?  

Explaining  the  increase  in  submergence  when  raising  the  pump  intake  

It   is   evident   from   the   review   of   acceptable   approach   velocities   that   the   maximum  

prototype  approach  velocity  should  be  0.3  m/s  or  less,  and  that  various  authors  also  

recommend   maximum   bell   inlet   velocities   ranging   from   1.3   m/s   (Prosser,   1977)   to  

2.1   m/s   (Hydraulic   Institute,   1998).     The   approach   velocity   is   linked   to   the   bell   inlet  

velocity   and   it   was   therefore   decided   to   plot   prototype   submergence   against   the  

18  
dimensionless  ratio  of  inlet  bell  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  to  determine  whether  

the  sudden  increase  in  submergence  could  be  related  to  this  dimensionless  ratio.  

The  submergence  required  for  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices,  which  is  plotted  against  the  

equivalent  bell  inlet  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  ratio  for  a  Type  1B  suction  bell  

configuration,  is  shown  in  Figures  13  to  15  respectively.  

Type  1B  bellmouth:  Bell/Approach  velocity  ratio  against  submergence   for  Type  2  
vortices
3.0

2.5

2.0
Submergence  (m)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Bell/approach  velocity  ratio

0.5D 1.0D 1.5D

 

Figure  13:    Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  against  bell/approach  velocity  

ratios  for  Type  2  vortices  

19  
 Type  1B  bellmouth:  Bell/Approach  velocity  ratio  against  submergence   for  Type  5  
vortices
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Submergence  (m)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Bell/approach  velocity  ratio

0.5D 1.0D 1.5D

 

Figure  14:    Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  against  bell/approach  velocity  

ratios  for  Type  5  vortices  

Type  1B  bellmouth:  Bell/Approach  velocity  ratio  against  submergence   for  Type  6  
vortices
1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
Submergence  (m)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Bell/approach  velocity  ratio

0.5D 1.0D 1.5D

 

20  
Figure  15:    Type  1B  suction  bell  –  submergence  against  bell/approach  velocity  

ratios  for  Type  6  vortices  

The  ovals  on  Figures  13  to  15  represent  the  points  where  the  submergence  suddenly  

increased,   i.e.   the   minimum   and   maximum   submergence   required   for   the   0.5D   (the  

blue  markers)  and  1.0D  (the  red  markers)  are  similar,  but  the  submergence  for  some  

points  of  the  1.5D  installation  are  much  higher  than  for  the  0.5D  and  1.0D  installations.    

These  points  are  the  same  points  shown  in  Figures  10  to  12  where  the  submergence  

suddenly  increased  as  the  bell  height  was  increased.      

It  is  evident  from  Figures  13  to  15  that  the  points  inside  the  ovals,  which  represent  the  

points  where  the  submergence  suddenly  increased,  are  all  plotted  near  or  above  an  

inlet  bell/approach  canal  velocity  ratio  of  6.0.  

It  was  concluded  that  a  “discontinuity”  in  the  required  submergence  occurs  for  all  the  

bell   configuration   types   when   the   bell   inlet   velocity/approach   canal   velocity   ratio   is  

approximately  6.0  or  higher.    It  is  further  evident  that  the  submergence  required  for  

pump  intake  installations  with  bell  inlet  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  ratios  greater  

than  6.0  needs  to  be  much  more  than  for  those  installations  where  this  ratio  is  less  

than  6.0.    This  finding  applies  to  pump  installations  with  the  same  geometry  as  that  of  

the  physical  model.      

Comparison  of  test  results  of  four  bell  intake  configurations  

A  comparison  between  the  submergence  levels  for  the  Type  1A  and  1B  suction  bell  

configurations   (i.e.   flat   underside)   showed   that   similar   submergence   levels   were  

recorded,  i.e.  the  radius  of  the  suction  bend  did  not  influence  the  submergence  levels.    

This   was   also   true   for   the   comparison   between   the   Type   2A   and   2B   suction   bell  

configurations  (i.e.  slanted  underside).      

21  
It  was  evident,  when  comparing  the  results  between  Type  1B  and  2B  suction  bells,  that  

the  submergence  required  for  the  Type  1  B  bell  configuration  is  lower  than  that  of  the  

Type  2B  bell  configurations  for  all  types  of  vortices.      

COMPARISON  OF  TEST  RESULTS  AGAINST  DESIGN  GUIDELINES  

It   was   concluded   earlier   that   the   Type   1B   suction   bell   configuration   is   the  

recommended  configuration  for  the  design  of  pump  intakes  such  as  the  Vlieëpoort  and  

Lower  Thukela  schemes.  

It  was  evident  from  the  design  guidelines  presented  in  Figure  2  that  large  differences  

exist  between  the  critical  submergence  recommended  by  the  various  authors.    In  the  

following  section,  a  comparison  is  made  between  the  submergence  measured  in  the  

physical   model   study,   for   the   Type   2,   5   and   6   vortices,   and   the   published   design  

guidelines  to  determine  which  of  the  design  guidelines  best  represent  the  measured  

submergence.  

Figures   16,   17   and   18   show   the   comparison   between   the   critical   submergence  

recommended   in   the   design   guidelines   and   the   measured   Type   2,   5   and   6  

submergence  for  bell  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  respectively.  

22  
 Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity  for  0.5D  bell  height
4.50

4.00

3.50
9
Critical  submergence  (m)

3.00
2
3
2.50

2.00 8

1
1.50
4 7 5
1.00 6

0.50

0.00
0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)

1.  Prosser  &  Sulzer 2.  Hydraulic  institute  &  Jones 3.  Peterson  and  Noble 4.  Knauss
5.  Gorman  Rupp 6.  KSB 7.  Metcalf  &  Eddy 8.  Flygt
9.  D  Werth Type  2  vortex Type  5  vortex Type  6  vortex
 

Figure  16:    Comparison  of  submergence  between  design  guidelines  and  

measured  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices  for  a  bell  height  of  0.5D  

It  is  evident  from  Figure  16  that:  

•   The  measured  Type  2  submergence  levels  are  slightly  lower  than  the  submergence  

levels  recommended  by  Knauss  (1987);;  and  

•   The  measured  Type  5  and  6  submergence  levels  are  slightly  lower  than  the  design  

guidelines   recommended   by   KSB   (Gouws,   2010)   and   Gorman-­Rupp   (Strydom,  

2010b).  

23  
 Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity  for  1.0D  bell  height
4.50

4.00

3.50
9
Critical  submergence  (m)

3.00
2
3
2.50

2.00 8

1
1.50
4 7 5
1.00 6

0.50

0.00
0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)

1.  Prosser  &  Sulzer 2.  Hydraulic  institute  &  Jones 3.  Peterson  and  Noble 4.  Knauss
5.  Gorman  Rupp 6.  KSB 7.  Metcalf  &  Eddy 8.  Flygt
9.  D  Werth Type  2  vortex Type  5  vortex Type  6  vortex
 

Figure  17:    Comparison  of  submergence  between  design  guidelines  and  

measured  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices  for  a  bell  height  of  1.0D  

It  can  be  seen  from  the  results  presented  in  Figure  17  that:  

•   The   Type   2   measured   submergence   closely   follows   the   critical   submergence  

recommended   by   Metcalf   and   Eddy   (1981,   E-­mail   communication   with   Strydom,  

2010a);;  and  

•   The   Type   5   and   6   measured   submergence   is   less   than   any   of   the   design  

recommendations.  

24  
 Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity  for  1.5D  bell  height
4.50

4.00

3.50
9
Critical  submergence  (m)

3.00
2
3
2.50

2.00 8

1
1.50
4 7 5
1.00 6

0.50

0.00
0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)

1.  Prosser  &  Sulzer 2.  Hydraulic  institute  &  Jones 3.  Peterson  and  Noble 4.  Knauss
5.  Gorman  Rupp 6.  KSB 7.  Metcalf  &  Eddy 8.  Flygt
9.  D  Werth Type  2  vortex Type  5  vortex Type  6  vortex
 

Figure  18:    Comparison  of  submergence  between  design  guidelines  and  

measured  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices  for  a  bell  height  of  1.5D  

It  is  evident  from  Figure  18  that:  

•   The   measured   Type   2   submergence   is   now   higher   than   the   submergence  

recommended   by   Knauss   (1987),   but   lower   than   that   recommended   by   the  

Hydraulic  Institute  (1998);;    

•   The   submergence   recommended   by   Metcalf   and   Eddy   (1981,   E-­mail  

communication   with   Strydom,   2010a)   is   similar   to   the   measured   Type   5  

submergence;;  and  

•   The   measured   Type   6   submergence   is   similar   to   that   recommended   by   KSB  

(Gouws,  2010)  and  Gorman  Rupp  (Strydom,  2010b).  

The  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998)  recommended  that  the  critical  submergence  be  based  

on  Type  3  vortices  (i.e.  coherent  dye  core),  provided  that  they  occur  for  less  than  10%  

of  the  time.    It  was  demonstrated  in  the  physical  model  testing  that  Type  3  vortices  

25  
cannot  be  determined  accurately  and  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  determine  whether  

they   occur   for   less   than   10%   of   the   time.     This   effectively   means   that   the   critical  

submergence  should  rather  be  based  on  the  water  levels  at  which  Type  2  vortices  are  

detected.  

It  was  concluded  in  the  evaluation  of  the  repeatability  of  the  results  obtained  with  the  

physical  model  testing,  that  a  safety  factor  of  18%  should  be  allowed  if  only  one  water  

level   measurement   is   taken   to   cater   for   possible   inaccuracies   and   subjective  

measurements.    Figure  19  therefore  shows  the  measured  Type  2  submergence  levels  

that  were  increased  by  20%  in  comparison  with  the  available  design  guidelines.  

Critical  submergence  versus  bell  inlet  velocity  for    Type  2  vortices

4.50

4.00

3.50
9
Critical  submergence  (m)

3.00
2
3
2.50

2.00 8

1
1.50
4 7 5
1.00 6

0.50

0.00
0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.10 2.40 2.70 3.00
Bell  inlet  velocity  (m/s)

1.  Prosser  &  Sulzer 2.  Hydraulic  institute  &  Jones 3.  Peterson  and  Noble 4.  Knauss
5.  Gorman  Rupp 6.  KSB 7.  Metcalf  &  Eddy 8.  Flygt
9.  D  Werth Type  2  vortex  (0.5D) Type  2  vortex  (1.0D) Type  2  vortex  (1.5D)
 

Figure  19:    Comparison  of  submergence  between  design  guidelines  and  

measured  Type  2  vortices  for  bell  heights  of  0.5D,  1.0D  and  1.5D  

The  following  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  Figure  19:  

•   The   critical   submergence   proposed   by   Knauss   (1987)   should   be   used   for   pump  

intakes  that  are  located  at  0.5D  and  1.0D  above  the  canal  floor;;  and  

26  
•   The  critical  submergence  recommended  by  the  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998)  should  

be  used  when  raising  the  pump  intake  to  1.5D  above  the  canal  floor.  

It  was  also  shown  in  Figures  13  to  15  that  the  submergence  required  for  the  0.5D  and  

1.0D  bell  heights  plotted  below  a  bell  inlet  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  ratio  of  6.0,  

whereas  the  1.5D  bell  installation  plotted  above  a  ratio  of  6.0.  

It   therefore   is   recommended   that,   for   pump   intakes   with   a   similar   geometry   to   that  

tested  with  the  physical  hydraulic  model,  critical  submergence  be  calculated  with  the  

equation   published   by   Knauss   (1987),   i.e.   S   =   D(0.5   +   2.0Fr),   where   the   bell   inlet  

velocity/approach   canal   velocity   ratio,   as   determined   with   Knauss’   equation,   is   less  

than  6.0,  and  that  the  equation  published  by  the  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998),  i.e.  S  =  D(1  

+  2.3Fr),  be  used  where  the  ratio  exceeds  6.0.      

The   Hydraulic   Institute   recommended   inlet   bell   velocities   of   up   to   2.1   m/s,   with   the  

optimum   inlet   velocity   being   1.7   m/s.     It   was,   however,   recommended   by   Prosser  

(1977)  and  Sulzer  Brothers  Limited  (1987)  that  inlet  bell  velocities  be  limited  to  1.3  m/s,  

whereas  Jones  (2008)  recommended  1.5  m/s  as  the  maximum  inlet  bell  velocity.    The  

water   surface   became   turbulent   in   the   physical   model   study   when   the   bell   inlet  

velocities   were   increased   above   1.8   m/s,   which   supports   the   recommendations   by  

Prosser,  Sulzer  Brothers  Limited  and  Jones.    It  is  recommended  that  bell  inlet  velocities  

therefore  be  limited  to  1.5  m/s.        

CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  

Conclusions  

A   physical   hydraulic   model   study,   at   a   1:10   scale,   was   undertaken   to   evaluate   the  

impact   on   critical   submergence   when   raising   the   pump   intake   to   above   the  

recommended   norm   of   0.3   to   0.5   times   the   diameter   of   the   inlet   bell   from   the   floor.    

Four  different  configurations  of  pump  intakes  were  tested.    The  following  conclusions  

27  
ensued  from  the  results  of  the  physical  hydraulic  model  investigation  and  associated  

literature  review:  

•   Various  equations  have  been  published  to  calculate  critical  submergence  for  pump  

intakes.     The   submergence   values   calculated   with   these   equations   vary  

substantially,  which  posed  questions  as  to  their  validity.  

•   The  water  level  measurements  at  which  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortices  occurred  in  the  

physical   hydraulic   model   could   be   repeated   with   a   reasonably   high   level   of  

confidence.      

•   The  submergence  required  to  prevent  Type  2,  5  and  6  vortex  formation  increased  

markedly  when  the  pump  intake  was  raised  above  a  certain  height.    The  marked  

increase  in  submergence  occurred  when  the  ratio,  inlet  bell  velocity  to  approach  

canal  velocity,  exceeded  6.0.  

•   The   submergence   required   for   slanted   suction   bells   was   higher   than   for  

conventional  flat  suction  bells.    The  submergence  required  was  similar  for  suction  

bells  with  short  (i.e.  1  x  suction  pipe  diameter)  and  long  radius  (i.e.  2  x  suction  pipe  

diameter)  bends,  with  the  recommendation  to  design  based  on  long  radius  bends  

which  had  marginally  higher  submergence  requirements.    

•   Critical   submergence   should   be   based   on   the   water   levels   at   which   Type   2   (i.e.  

surface  dimples)  vortices  occur  due  to  the  difficulty  associated  with  identifying  Type  

3  (i.e.  coherent  dye  core)  vortices  in  the  physical  hydraulic  model  and  given  the  

Hydraulic  Institute  (1998)  guideline  that  Type  3  vortices  should  occur  less  than  10%  

of  the  time.    

•   The  Type  2  water  levels,  for  different  prototype  bell  inlet  velocities  and  a  prototype  

inlet  bell  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  ratio  of  less  than  6.0,  closely  followed  the  

submergence  levels  calculated  with  the  equation  published  by  Knauss  (1987),  i.e.  

28  
 S   =   D(0.5   +   2.0Fr).     The   Type   2   water   levels,   where   the   prototype   bell   inlet  

velocity/approach   canal   velocity   ratio   exceeded   6.0,   closely   followed   the  

submergence   levels   calculated   with   the   equation   published   by   the   Hydraulic  

Institute  (1998),  i.e.  S  =  D(1  +  2.3Fr).  

•   Prototype   bell   inlet   velocities   should   be   limited   to   1.5   m/s,   as   the   water   surface  

became  turbulent  in  the  physical  hydraulic  model  when  the  bell  inlet  velocities  were  

increased  above  1.8  m/s.    This  was  also  reported  by  various  authors  referenced  in  

the  literature  review.  

Recommendations  

The  following  recommendations  are  made  for  the  design  of  pump  intakes  with  a  similar  

geometry  to  that  tested  in  the  physical  hydraulic  model:  

•   Conventional  flat  bottom  suction  bells  can  be  used  for  flows  of  up  to  2.5  m3/s  per  

pump.  

•   Prototype  bell  inlet  velocities  should  be  limited  to  1.5  m/s.  

•   The  use  of  short  or  long  radius  suction  bends  should  be  evaluated  against  other  

criteria  such  as  net  positive  suction  head  requirements  of  the  pumps  and  the  overall  

height  of  the  pump  installation.  

•   The  equation  published  by  Knauss  (1987),  i.e.  S  =  D(0.5  +  2.0Fr),  can  be  used  to  

calculate  critical  submergence  where  the  bell  inlet  velocity/approach  canal  velocity  

ratio,   as   determined   with   Knauss’   equation,   is   less   than   6.0.     The   equation  

published  by  the  Hydraulic  Institute  (1998),  i.e.  S  =  D(1  +  2.3Fr),  can  be  used  where  

the  ratio  exceeds  6.0.  

29  
REFERENCE  LIST  

Ahmad,  Z.,  Jain,  B.,  &  Mittal,  M.  (2011).  Rational  design  of  a  pump-­sump  and  its  model  

testing.  Journal  of  Pipeline  Systems  Engineering  and  Practice,  Vol  2  (p53-­63).  

American   Water   Works   Association.   (1983).   C208:   Dimensions   for   Fabricated   Steel  

Water  Pipe  Fittings.  Denver,  USA.  

Ansar,  M.,  &  Nakato,  T.  (2001).  Experimental  study  of  3D  pump-­intake  flows  with  and  

without  cross  flow.  Journal  of  Hydraulic  Engineering,  Vol  127  (p825-­834).  

Arboleda,  G.,  &  El-­Fadel,  M.  (1996).  Effects  of  approach  flow  conditions  on  pump  sump  

design.  Journal  of  Hydraulic  Engineering,  Vol  122  (p489-­494).  

Basson,  G.  (2010).  Mokolo  Crocodile  Project:  Hydraulic  design  and  modelling  of  the  

Crocodile  River  abstraction  works.  Johannesburg:  TCTA.  

Basson,  G.  (2011).  Lower  Thukela  Bulk  Water  Supply  Scheme:  Hydraulic  design  and  

modelling  of  the  proposed  Lower  Thukela  abstraction  works.  Pietermaritzburg:  

Umgeni  Water.  

Daggett,   L.,   &   Keulegan,   G.   (1974).   Similitude   in   free-­surface   vortex   formations.  

Journal  of  the  Hydraulics  Division,  Vol  100  (p1565-­1581).  

Denney,   D.,   &   Young,   G.   (July   1957).   The   prevention   of   vortices   and   intakes.   7th  

International  Association  of  Hydraulic  Research,  (p.  Paper  C1).  Lisbon.  

Featherstone,   R.,   &   Nalluri,   C.   (1988).   Civil   engineering   hydraulics.   Oxford:   BSP  

Professional  Books.  

Flygt.   (2002).   Design   recommendations   for   pumping   stations   with   dry   installed  

submersible  pumps.  Stockholm:  Flygt.  

Fraser,  W.,  &  Harrison,  N.  (1953).  Hydraulic  problems  encountered  in  intake  structures  

of   vertical   wet-­pit   pumps   and   methods   leading   to   their   solution.   American  

Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  Vol  4  (p643-­652).  

30  
Gouws,   J.(johan.gouws@ksbpumps.co.za)   (2010,   December   13).   Minimum  

submergence  for  KSB  pumps.  E-­mail  correspondence,  13  December  2010.  

Hecker,   G.   (1981).   Model-­prototype   comparison   of   free   surface   vortices.   Journal   of  

Hydraulic  Division,  Vol  107  (p1243-­1259).  

Hundley,   K.   (2012).   Modelling   of   a   pump   intake   with   a   single   phase   CFD   model.  

Stellenbosch:  Stellenbosch  University.  

Hydraulic  Institute.  (1998).  American  national  standard  for  pump  intake  design.  New  

York:  ANSI.  

Iversen,   H.   (1953).   Studies   of   submergence   requirements   of   high   specific   speed  

pumps.  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  Vol  4  (p635-­641).  

Jain,  A.,  Raju,  K.,  &  Garde,  R.  (1978).  Vortex  formation  at  vertical  pipe  intakes.  Journal  

of  Hydraulics  Division,  Vol  104  (p1429-­1445).  

Jones,  G.,  Sanks,  R.,  Tchobanoglous,  G.,  &  Bosserman,  B.  (2008).  Pumping  station  

design  (3rd  edn).  Elsevier.  

Karassik,  I.,  Messina,  J.,  Cooper,  P.,  &  Heald,  C.  (2001).  Pump  handbook  (4th  edn).  

McGraw-­Hill.  

Knauss,   J.   (1987).   Swirling   flow   problems   at   intakes.   Rotterdam:   AA   Balkema  

Publishers.  

Massey,  B.  (1989).  Mechanics  of  fluids.  London:  Chapman  &  Hall.  

Nortek.  (2004).  Vectrino  velocimeter:  User  guide.  Norway:  Nortek.  

Padmanabhan,  M.,  &  Hecker,  G.  (1984).  Scale  effects  in  pump  sump  models.  Journal  

of  Hydraulic  Engineering,  Vol  110  (p1540-­1556).  

Paterson,   I.,   &   Noble,   R.   (1982).   The   right   approach.   Proceedings   of   the   IAHR-­

Symposium   on   Operating   Problems   of   Pump   Sations   and   Power   Plants.  

Amsterdam.  

31  
Prosser,  M.  (1977).  The  hydraulic  design  of  pump  sumps  and  intakes.  Bedford,  UK:  

British  Hydromechanics  Research  Association.  

Rajendran,  V.,  &  Patel,  V.  (2000).  Measurement  of  vortices  in  model  pump-­intake  bay  

by  PIV.  Journal  of  Hydraulic  Engineering,  Vol  126  (p322-­334).  

Strydom,  D.  (deon@pumptron.co.za)  (2010a,  December  14).  Collection  and  pumping  

of  wastewater  (Metcalf  &  Eddy,  1981).    E-­mail  correspondence,  14  December  

2010.  

Strydom,   D.   (deon@pumptron.co.za)   (2010b,   December   14).   Critical   submergence  

used  for  Gorman-­Rupp  pumps.    E-­mail  correspondence,  14  December  2010.  

Sulzer   Brothers   Limited.   (1987).   Centrifugal   pump   handbook.   Switzerland:   Sulzer  

Brothers  Limited.  

Webber,  N.  (1979).  Fluid  mechanics  for  civil  engineers.  London:  Chapman  &  Hall.  

Werth,  D.,  &  Frizzell,  C.  (2009).  Minimum  pump  submergence  to  prevent  surface  vortex  

formation.  Journal  of  Hydraulic  Research,  Vol  47  (p142-­144).  

32