Poggi (6), K n a p p a n d I p p e n ' s solution yields more satisfactory results

for relatively sharp curves a n d high bottom slopes, say > 5 % , whereas
Karman's solution is rather appropriate to flows with gentle curves.

CONCLUSIONS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Analysis for relative small wave angles of the equations describing the
plane oblique standing wave indicates constant magnitude of the veloc-
ity across the wave. The result of K n a p p a n d I p p e n is obtained with the
remaining equations u n d e r the same approximations. It has b e e n dem-
onstrated that their experimental relation is valid for relatively high u p -
stream Froude n u m b e r s . As an illustration Poggi's experimental results
are compared with the theory, a n d a reasonable agreement is observed.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Chow, V. T., "Open Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill, Tokyo, Japan, 1959.

2. Henderson, F. M., "Open Channel Flow," Macmillan, New York, N.Y., 1966.
3. Ippen, A. T., "Gas Wave Analogy in Open Channel Flow," Proc. 2nd Hy-
draulics Conf., Bull. 27, University of Iowa, Studies in Engineering, 1943.
4. Kdrman, T., von, "Eine praktische Anwendung der Analogie zwischen Ueb-
erschall-Stromung in Gasen und uberkirtischer Stromung in offenen Gerin-
nen," ZAMM, 18, 1938, pp. 49-56.
5. Knapp, R. T., Ippen, A. T., "Curvilinear Flow of Liquids with Free Surfaces
at Velocities Above that of Wave Propagation," Proceeding 5th International
Congress Applied Mechanics, 1938.
6. Poggi, B., "Correnti veloci nei canali in curva," L'Energia Elettrica, Vol. 34,
1956, pp. 465-480.
7. Rouse, H., "Engineering Hydraulics," John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
N.Y., Chapmann & Hall, Ltd., London, England, 1948.

HEAD LOSSES AT SEWER JUNCTION MANHOLES

By J. Marsalek 1

INTRODUCTION

The hydraulic design of sewer networks requires consideration of mi-

nor head losses at various appurtenances a n d special structures, a m o n g
'Research Scientist, Environmental Hydr. Section, Hydr. Div., National Water
Research Inst., Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Note.—Discussion open until January 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on August 18, 1982. This paper is part of the Jour-
nal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 8, August, 1984. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9429/84/0008-1150/$01.00. Paper No. 19034.

1150

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984.110:1150-1154.

 which the most common are sewer junction manholes. In many sur-
charged sewer systems (it is quite likely that), the minor losses caused
by junctions, sewer inlets, house connections, and other appurtenances
exceed the friction losses and reduce system capacity significantly.
The results of the first phase of a study of head losses at sewer junc-
tion manholes are presented here. The initial phase dealt with straight-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

flow-through junctions with identical inflow and outflow pipe diame-

ters. That type of junction was previously studied for two particular ge-
ometries by Archer, et al. (1) and by Sangster et al. (2). In both studies,
the head loss coefficient was found to be constant for a wide range of
velocities and depended only on the junction geometry.

STUDY SCOPE

The study focused on the effects of junction geometry on head losses

in the pressurized flow region. Junction geometry was varied by using
three arrangements (see Fig. 1) in square and circular manholes and by
varying the ratio of the manhole size to the pipe diameter for one se-
lected arrangement. A description of junction arrangements, referred to
as moulds, follows.
Mould No. 1 (Ml) represented the simplest arrangement without any
flow guidance provided at the junction. The flow cross section expanded
suddenly at the entrance and contracted at the exit. Mould No. 2 (M2)
was obtained by extending the lower half of the pipe through the junc-
tion and adding horizontal benches extending from the semicircular
channel to the junction side walls. Mould No. 3 (M3) consisted of the
lower half of the pipe extended by vertical walls to the pipe crown el-
evation, where it connected to horizontal benches extending to the junc-
tion side walls.
In all tests, the inflow and outflow pipe diameters were identical. Al-
though the pipes were surcharged, there was a free water surface at the
junction. Consequently, the depth of water at the junction fluctuated
with pressure variations in the inflow pipe. The water surface at the
junction was slightly above the intersection of the upstream junction end
wall with the hydraulic grade line in the inflow pipe.

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

The test pipe was a clear acrylic pipe with a 6-in. (152-mm) internal
diameter. Piezometer openings were formed in the test pipe at 2-ft (0.61-
MANHOLES JUNCTION MOULDS
SQUARE CIRCULAR M1 M2 M3

SJ D O Q LOJ Ky XT

FIG. 1.—Sewer Pipe Junctions Tested

1151

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984.110:1150-1154.

 m) intervals. The piezometers were connected to a manometer board
which allowed the reading of the piezometric heads with an accuracy of
±0.02 in. (0.5 mm).
The junction manhole was a clear plexiglass. The inside dimensions
of the basic square manhole were 1.13 ft x 1.13 ft x 2 ft [0.344 m x
0.344 m x 0.620 m (width x length x height)]. A smaller manhole mea-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

suring 0.79 ft x 0.79 ft x 2 ft (0.241 x 0.241 x 0.620 m) was obtained

by installing an insert in the basic structure. The basic circular manhole
had an internal diameter of 0.96 ft (0.293 m), and by using an insert,
this diameter was reduced to 0.67 ft (0.203 m).
In experimental runs, the discharge through the apparatus was varied
in small increments starting with the pipe flowing full and eventually
bringing the hydraulic grade line about 3.5 D (D = sewer pipe diameter)
above the pipe invert. For each discharge, the flow rate was measured
and piezometer readings were taken. The total energy head was calcu-
lated at individual points as £ = z + p + v2/2g, in which z = the ele-
vation, p = the pressure head, v = the mean flow velocity, and g = the
gravitational acceleration. Finally, energy grade lines upstream and
downstream of the junction were approximated by straight lines that
were fitted through 9 points upstream and 9 points downstream of the
junction. At the manhole center, the difference between the two line
elevations was taken as the junction head loss AE and expressed as AE
= K v2/2g, in which K = the head loss coefficient.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Experimental head losses were plotted as AE versus v2/2g for individ-

ual manholes and junction moulds. A sample of those graphs is given
in Fig. 2. The head loss coefficients were then taken as the slope of the
regression lines fitted to the experimental data. These coefficients and
their 95% confidence limits are given in Tables 1 and 2.
In engineering practice, manholes of a standard size are used for a
range of sewer sizes, thus effectively varying the relative manhole width.

SQUARE MANHOLE CIRCULAR MANHOLE

.00 .05 .10 .00 .05 .10

v2/2g(m) v2/2g (m)

FiG. 2.—Head Loss versus Velocity Head

1152

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984.110:1150-1154.

 TABLE 1 .—Junction Head Loss Coefficient for Pressure Pipe Flow
M1 M2 M3
Manhole type K K K
(D (2) (3) (4)
Square-Mean values 0.323 0.215 0.154
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

95% confidence
limits 0.302-0.344 0.198-0.232 0.138-0.170
Circular Mean values 0.208 0.157 0.121
95% confidence limits 0.195-0.221 0.140-0.174 0.105-0.137

TABLE 2.--Effect of Junction Width on Head Loss Coefficient (Mould M1)

Head Loss Coefficient, K
Manhole type Manhole width/D Mean 95% confidence limits
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Square 1.00 0.120 0.102-0.138
1.58 0.179 0.143-0.215
2.26 0.323 0.302-0.344
Circular 1.33 0.140 0.124-0.156
1.92 0.208 0.195-0.221

It was therefore of interest to investigate the effect of the manhole width

on head losses. Such investigations were limited to mould Ml and a
small range of manhole widths (£ 2.26 D). Junctions wider than 2.26 D
were not studied, because Sangster, et al. (2) found only minor increases
in loss coefficients for manholes wider than 2 D and no changes for
widths greater than 2.5 D.
Head loss coefficients for manholes of various widths are given in Ta-
ble 2. As expected, the coefficients decreased with the decreasing man-
hole width. Thus, the head loss coefficients reported here for basic square
and circular manholes represent the upper limit values when dealing
with manholes of various widths.

RESULTS

In the absence of proper experimental data, it has been suggested that

it is necessary to treat the sewer junction manhole loss as the sum of a
sudden expansion and sudden contraction loss, with the resulting head
loss coefficient as high as 1.5 (3). The experimental results reported ear-
lier (1,2), as well as those reported here for different junction geome-
tries, indicate that the losses at the straight-flow-through junctions are
considerably smaller than the combined expansion-contraction loss. This
finding follows from the fact that the main body of the stream crossing
the junction remains more or less intact. Only the outlying parts undergo
changes in trajectories, which then lead to energy losses.
The junctions with benchings inside the manhole (moulds M2 and M3)
produced the lowest losses. Among these, mold M2 offers a compromise
between easy accessibility and a fairly low head loss. In general, moulds
Ml and M3 represent the worst and the best practical cases, respec-
1153

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984.110:1150-1154.

 tively. Other configurations will fall somewhere between these two ex-
tremes and their loss coefficient should be between the values reported
for Ml and M3.
Experimental data in Fig. 2 show some scatter, which is caused by
errors in the energy grade lines extrapolated to the junction manhole
center. The magnitude of these errors is not only affected by errors in
piezometric readings, but also by extrapolation of the fitted energy grade
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lines to the junction center, outside the sections where the readings were
taken. For practical purposes, the uncertainty in head loss coefficients,
as indicated by the 95% confidence limits in Tables 1 and 2, is not
excessive.
It was noted that the head loss coefficients reported here compared
well to those reported for similar installations earlier. For junctions sim-
ilar to mould M3, Archer, et al. (1) reported loss coefficients from 0 . 1 -
0.15, which compare well to the values of 0.10-0.17 given in Table 1.
For junctions similar to mould Ml, Sangster, et al. (2) reported loss coef-
ficients from 0.05-0.28, which compare well to the values of 0.11-0.34
taken from Tables 1 and 2.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The head losses at straight-flow-through junctions were found to be

proportional to the velocity head. The coefficient of proportionality, the
head loss coefficient, was a constant given by the junction geometry. In
wide junctions without benching, the head loss coefficient varied from
0.21-0.32. With a benching extending to the pipe crown, the loss coef-
ficient was reduced to 0.12-0.15.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Archer, B., Bettes, F., and Colyer, P. J., "Head Losses and Air Entrainment
at Surcharged Manholes," Report No. IT185, Hydraulic Research Station, Wall-
ingford, U.K., Nov., 1978.
2. Sangster, W. M., Wood, H. W., Smerdan, E. T., and Bossy, H. G., "Pressure
Changes at Storm Drain Junctions," Engineering Series Bulletin No. 41, Engi-
neering Experiment Station, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., 1958.
3. Wood, D. J., "The Analysis of Flow in Surcharged Storm Sewer Systems,"
Proceedings, International Symposium on Urban Storm Runoff, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., July 28-31, 1980, pp. 29-35.

1154

J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984.110:1150-1154.