Urban Water Journal

ISSN: 1573-062X (Print) 1744-9006 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nurw20

Hydraulic design aspects for supercritical flow in

vortex drop shafts

G. Crispino, M. Pfister & C. Gisonni

To cite this article: G. Crispino, M. Pfister & C. Gisonni (2019) Hydraulic design aspects
for supercritical flow in vortex drop shafts, Urban Water Journal, 16:3, 225-234, DOI:
10.1080/1573062X.2019.1648531

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2019.1648531

Published online: 30 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 253

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nurw20
URBAN WATER JOURNAL
2019, VOL. 16, NO. 3, 225–234
https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2019.1648531

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Hydraulic design aspects for supercritical flow in vortex drop shafts

a
G. Crispino , M. Pfisterb and C. Gisonni a

a
Department of Engineering, Università della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Aversa, Italy; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Haute Ecole d’Ingénierie et
d’Architecture (Haute école spécialisée de Suisse occidentale, HES-SO), Fribourg, Switzerland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Vortex drop shafts, as special sewer manholes, operate optimally if an adequate energy dissipation is Received 20 February 2019
guaranteed and the integrity of the structural components is safeguarded. The results of an experi- Accepted 18 July 2019
mental study on a vortex drop shaft with supercritical inflow are discussed herein. The hydraulic KEYWORDS
behaviour of the spiral inlet, the vertical shaft and the dissipation chamber is described. Based on Dissipation chamber; energy
detailed flow observations, useful recommendations for designing these structures are provided. It is dissipation; physical model;
demonstrated that a relation adopted for supercritical bend flows provides a reliable estimation of the sewer manhole; supercritical
maximum wave height along the inlet. A procedure for predicting the rotational flow angles and the flow; vortex drop shaft
velocity distribution along vertical shafts with swirling flows is developed. Water levels and pressure
measurements in the dissipation chamber are further analysed to identify maximum forces acting on
the chamber invert and to derive preliminary design equations.

Introduction predict shock wave heights occurring along the inlet struc-
ture were provided by Hager (1990). Del Giudice, Gisonni,
Drop manholes are common elements in urban drainage
and Rasulo (2010) coupled a conventional spiral inlet for
systems. The magnitude of the drop height strictly relates
subcritical approach flow with an upstream negative step to
to the specific purpose for which a drop manhole is needed.
enhance the structural performance. The hydraulics of the
Often, several sewer collectors arrive at different elevations
vertical shaft, along which an annular flow (Jain 1987) falls
at a node of the drainage system, requesting a simple drop
down to the outlet structure, was documented by
structure. Other ordinary drop manholes are adopted to
Kellenberger (1988). Camino, Zhu, and Rajaratnam (2014)
limit sewer collector slopes and, consequently, flow veloci-
studied flow regimes and velocities and air distributions at
ties and flow aeration. Under these circumstances, the mis-
different fall heights along the vertical shaft. Measurements
alignment of collector bottoms gives small drops, which are
of wall pressures and flow thickness in the shaft were
typically inferior to the characteristic dimension (the dia-
reported by Zhao et al. (2006). A dissipation chamber at
meter, for sewer pipes) of the involved collectors (De
the toe of the vertical shaft is foreseen to reconvert vertical
Martino, Gisonni, and Hager 2002). In other cases, the
into horizontal flow and to de-aerate the flow. Dimensions
downstream collectors, in which upstream sewers convey
for this structure were recommended by Hager and
respective discharges, are located at a significantly lower
Kellenberger (1987). Del Giudice, Gisonni, and Rasulo
elevation for sanitary and technical requirements. This is
(2008) proposed non-standard dissipation chamber config-
an everyday problem for hydraulic engineers, who have to
urations to optimize the hydraulic behaviour of the outflow,
face the difficulty to consider manholes with drop heights
entering the downstream collector.
up to tens of meters. Then, Vortex Drop Shafts (VDSs) can
An analysis of the reported investigations directs attention
be applied to connect up- and downstream sewer collectors
to some concerns on the hydraulic behaviour of supercritical
(Jain and Kennedy 1983; Vischer and Hager 1995).
VDSs components, to be further developed:
Usually, VDSs are designed following guidelines and
empirical recommendations from the literature. Early com-
(1) The inlet structure dimensions at the top of the
prehensive studies on VDS hydraulics were conducted by
vertical shaft are often quantified following the
Drioli (1969), Knauss (1987), Kellenberger (1988), Quick
empirical results of Kellenberger (1988) and Hager
(1990) and Motzet and Valentin (2002) for sub- and super-
(1990) for supercritical approach flows. The freeboard
critical approach flows. Starting from these benchmarks,
is related to the expected maximum shock wave
different experimental investigations succeeded. Jain and
height. The latter may be estimated applying the
Kennedy (1983), Jain (1984), Hager (1990) and Yu and Lee
design relation provided by Hager (1990). New
(2009) focused on the inlet structure guiding the approach
experimental data would underline its relevance
flow into the shaft. Both the standard geometry and the
and, eventually, validate its accuracy for different
hydraulic performance were detailed, depending on the
inlet structures.
approach flow energy content. Empirical equations to

CONTACT G. Crispino gaetano.crispino@unicampania.it

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
226 G. CRISPINO ET AL.

(2) Open questions relating to the vertical shaft perfor-

mance persist. For instance, annular flow rotational
angles and flow velocities along the vertical shaft can
be specified. An analytical calculation of the flow thick-
ness, angles and velocities was proposed by Liu et al.
(2018). However, this procedure was applied for a new
type of VDS with a special inlet structure, so that
a verification of the Kellenberger (1988) geometry
remains open.
(3) The operation of the dissipation chamber represents
another crucial issue. Energy dissipation, flow de-
aeration and free-surface oscillations of the flow issued
in the downstream collector are hydraulic features to
be specifically considered in the chamber design, espe-
cially under overload scenarios.

The present research focuses on the above-mentioned con-

cerns, working with a physical large-scaled VDS model. The
model represents a ‘traditional’ VDS, as described by Hager
(2010) and Gisonni and Hager (2012), with the unique specifi-
city to present a junction chamber collecting flows from four
Figure 1. (a) Definition sketch (■ for pressure measurement devices, → for the
sewer collectors upstream of the inlet structure. Pfister et al. flow direction, – - – for free-surface) and (b) photographs of the model.
(2018) demonstrated that this peculiarity does not affect the
overall performance of the VDS. The physical model data were
collected by Crispino et al. (2016) and Pfister et al. (2018). They Table 1. Test program (prototype scale).
are analysed in the following to explore the hydraulic beha- Test Q (m3/s) ho (m) Fo (-) FC (-)
viour of the VDS model, from the inlet structure to the dis- A 1.17 0.07 9.23 0.04
sipation chamber. The outcomes of the present research can B 2.53 0.16 6.29 0.09
be usefully extended to any VDS layout with an inlet structure, C 6.43 0.23 4.61 0.23
D 9.54 0.59 3.36 0.34
conveying an annular swirling flow in the vertical shaft, and E (design discharge) 12.74 0.87 2.50 0.46
a dissipation chamber. F (overload) 14.54 0.99 2.37 0.52
G (overload) 15.77 1.04 2.36 0.56
H (overload) 17.39 1.11 2.30 0.62
Physical model
The physical VDS model was built at the Laboratory of of ±1%. The reduced dimensions of the propeller head sen-
Hydraulic Structures (LCH) of École Polytechnique Fédérale sor (ø22∙28 mm) led to disturb the flow marginally. Flow
de Lausanne (EPFL). The model replicated a future prototype depths in the chamber were visualized and measured by
serving the city of Cossonay, Switzerland, with a geometrical measuring strips on the transparent walls. Piezometric and
scale factor of 1:7.82. As scaled, the model was sufficiently dynamic pressures at the chamber invert were collected by
large to limit scale effects, especially with reference to the air- using six piezometers and dynamic pressure transmitters,
water mixture flows (Pfister and Chanson 2014). Figure 1 gives respectively, installed at x/Lch = 0.01, 0.12, 0.24, 0.48, 0.72
an overview of the model. In the following, the VDS is and 0.96 (Figure 1(a)). The dynamic pressure transmitters
described with prototype dimensions. (Keller Series 25, Keller AG für Druckmesstechnik,
The inlet structure was made of PVC. It was shaped as Winterthur, Switzerland) had a full-scale accuracy of ±0.5%.
a spiral according to Kellenberger (1988), with eccentricities They were connected to a 16-bit data acquisition board. The
e1 = 0.20 m and e2 = 0.80 m relative to the shaft axis. The first sampling frequency was 1.0 kHz and 60,000 samples were
spiral radius was R1 = 3.10 m. The vertical shaft and the taken per each test-run. Downstream of the chamber,
dissipation chamber were made of transparent PVC. The a tailwater tunnel conveyed the flow into the laboratory
shaft had a diameter of Ds = 2.40 m and a vertical height of recirculation system. Discharges were monitored by inductive
Ls = 59.30 m. The dissipation chamber was designed according flowmeters with a full-scale accuracy of ±0.5%.
to Hager and Kellenberger (1987). It was a parallelepiped, with In total, 8 test-runs were performed, all of which under super-
a length of Lch = 10.00 m, a width of Bch = 3.00 m and a height critical approach flow with Froude numbers Fo = Q/(g∙b2ho3)0.5
of Hch = 5.00 m. The chamber was equipped with a vertical de- ranging between 2.30 and 9.23. Here, Q is the discharge, b is the
aeration pipe of 1.40 m diameter. width of the rectangular inlet channel upstream of the spiral inlet
Flow depths along the spiral inlet were measured with and ho is the flow depth at the spiral entrance. The capacity
a point gauge connected to an electronic contact-time indi- Froude number relative to the shaft was calculated as FC
cator, with a reading accuracy of 0.5 mm. Flow velocities = Q/(g∙Ds5)0.5 and it ranged between 0.04 and 0.62. The test
were detected by a propeller type Schiltknecht MiniAir® 20, program, also indicating design and overload discharges, is
with a measuring range from 0.7 to 20.0 m/s and an accuracy given in Table 1.

Spiral inlet
The spiral inlet forces the approach flow to rotate, to trans-
form from rectilinear to annular flow and to orient from hor-
izontal to vertical. For supercritical approach flows, shock
waves are generated due to the flow deflection. As observed
during the tests, the free-surface flow along the spiral inlet
occupied partially the transverse cross-section, with one or
two local standing shock waves along the outer spiral wall.
In the test represented in Figure 2 (test G), for instance, only
one shock wave occurred.
Hager (1990) observed one standing shock wave only for
highly supercritical approach flow (4.50 < Fo < 10.00) whereas
a second wave was observed for small inlet channel bottom slopes
and reduced Fo. As observed in the present investigation, the free-
surface profile along the spiral inlet was characterized by one
wave maximum, whereas a second local shock wave was present
in the spiral for large Froude numbers. The observed non-
dimensional profiles y(X) along the spiral inlet are shown in
Figure 3, where y = (h − ho)/(hM − ho), with hM as the maximum
wave height, and X = x/R1. The maximum wave amplitude y = 1.0
(h = hM) is located at X ≈ 0.3 corresponding to a spiral angle of
θ = 135° (Figure 1). Downstream of X = 0.3, the free-surface profile
is decreasing with undulations for 2.30 ≤ Fo < 4.61 (tests from C to
H as shown in Table 1). A minimum was achieved for Fo = 9.23 (test
A) at X ≈ 0.4 and for Fo = 6.29 (test B) at X ≈ 0.5, instead.
Figure 2. Supercritical flow along the spiral for test G: (a) top view and (b) first
standing shock wave adhering to outer spiral wall.
URBAN WATER JOURNAL 227
Figure 3. Non-dimensional profile y(X) along the spiral inlet (the break line – - –
at y = 0.0 scales positive and negative semi-axes, dotted rectangles indicate
datapoints corresponding to minimum hm and maximum hM wave heights).
Downstream of this local minimum, a second wave amplitude
with −1.00 < y < −2.00 was observed for Fo = 6.29 and Fo = 9.23.
The y-value corresponding to the first shock wave is of
design interest because it dictates the height of the spiral
inlet chamber (plus freeboard). Hager (1990) estimated the
relative maximum wave height hM/R1 as a function of the
hydraulic features of the supercritical approach flow in terms
of ho, Fo, the bottom slope So, b and R1, as follows
hM h
0:5 i
¼ ð1:1 þ 0:15Fo Þ 2bho 2 R1 3 Fo  0:5So (1)
R1
Alternatively, Equation (2) provides an approximation of hM with-
out knowing the detailed inlet channel geometry. Equation (2) is
based on the present experimental data and on those of
Kellenberger (1988). It was inspired by the recommendations of
Reinauer and Hager (1997) for supercritical bend flows, stating
that the wave maximum depends on the bend number B = Fo
(b/R1)0.5. Figure 4(a) compares the normalized experimental wave
height maxima hM/ho to the bend number as
hM
¼ 2:3  B (2)
ho
As indicated in Figure 4(a), the agreement is satisfactory. Shock
wave maxima, as observed in the present VDS model, are slightly
larger than those of Kellenberger (1988). Equation (2) provides an
estimation of the relative maximum wave height hM/R1 with
R2 = 0.85, being larger than the determination of Equation (1)
(R2 = 0.80) as shown in Figure 4(b). For both equations, the
accuracy decreases when hM/R1 increases, probably because of
the turbulent fluctuations of the wave maximum for large Fo. It is
also noteworthy that the application of Equation (2), as conceived,
is allowable to predict hM for all the inlet structures with the
occurrence of shock waves (Jain 1984; Yu and Lee 2009; Quick
1990).
228 G. CRISPINO ET AL.

Figure 5. Measured rotational flow angles α along vertical shaft.

a limit height zUF beyond which the vertical flow velocity

variation is negligible, and the quasi-uniform flow is
expected to establish, as
 
ð1=nÞ6=5 Q 4=5
zUF ¼ 3   (3)
g πDs

Herein n is the Manning roughness coefficient for the drop

shaft pipe. This coefficient can increase by some 10% to
account for pipe aging (Gisonni and Hager 2012).
The measured rotational flow angles α (angle between
locally visible stream line and the vertical) from the top
(z/Ds = 0.0) to the toe (z/Ds = 23.5) of the shaft are shown in

Figure 4. (a) Normalized maximum wave height hM/ho versus bend number B,
and (b) comparison between measured (subscript mis) and predicted (subscript
calc, Equations (1) and (2)) values of relative wave maxima hM/R1.

Vertical shaft
Centrifugal (rotational) and gravity (translational) forces act
on the falling flow along the vertical shaft. The rotational
effect originates from the spiral inlet constraining the flow
to assume an angular velocity. Due to the centrifugal force,
the flow adheres to the shaft wall establishing a helicoidal
flow. Once the flow is distant from the spiral inlet, the
rotation reduces because of friction and the vertical transla-
tion driven by gravity tends to prevail. Even if a perfect axial
flow asymmetry is hardly to be achieved along the shaft as
the flow rotation is dissipated, quasi-uniform flow (subscript
UF) is assumed to establish, at a certain distance from the
shaft top (z = 0.00), as soon as an equilibrium between
driving (gravity) and retarding (wall roughness) forces is
reached. The rotational effect is then almost lost (Hager Figure 6. n-factor used for increasing the resistance coefficient λ against the
and Kellenberger 1987). Kellenberger (1988) provided capacity Froude number FC.

Figure 5. The value αs = 60° at z/Ds = 0.0 corresponds to the
bottom angle of the spiral inlet and relative to the vertical. At
a fixed shaft elevation, α increases by decreasing Fo or, corre-
spondingly, by increasing the incoming discharge Q (Table 1).
For Fo = 9.23 (test A) and Fo = 6.59 (test B), flow rotation lost
(α = 0°) at about z/Ds = 9.5 and z/Ds = 17.5, respectively. These
no-rotation elevations are slightly larger (+25%) than zUF given
by Equation (3), proving that the centrifugal effect is more
significant than that predicted by Kellenberger (1988). For all
Figure 7. Measured rotational flow angles α along the vertical shaft for Fo = : (a) 9.23, (b) 6.29, (c) 4.61, (d) 3.36, (e) 2.50, (f) 2.37, (g) 2.36, (h) 2.30.
URBAN WATER JOURNAL 229
other tests, the helicoidal flow still rotated (α > 0°) at the shaft
end. So far, few analytical approaches for α, or alternatively for
the axial (i.e., vertical) and tangential (i.e., horizontal) velocity
components Vv and Vh along the vertical shaft, are available
up to the Authors knowledge (Jeanpierre and Lachal 1966; Liu
et al. 2018). Kellenberger (1988) estimated the shaft velocity
magnitude as
ðV=VUF Þ2 ¼ tanhðz=zUF Þ (4)
230 G. CRISPINO ET AL.

Figure 8. Normalized (a) Vv/Vv,3 and (b) Vh/Vh,3 profiles along the vertical shaft.

Herein, an analytical approach for computing α, Vv and Vh

Figure 9. (a) Free-surface mixture-flow profiles in the dissipation chamber, (b) flow
is proposed. The following assumptions and the conse- pattern for Fo = 2.50 (test E), and (c) hmax/Hch against FC.
quent results refer to the present VDS geometry, with
a spiral inlet at the shaft head. However, the present
The flow thickness e3 is instead obtained by applying the
procedure may be easily applied to VDSs controlled by
continuity equation:
other inlet devices (Yu and Lee 2009; Liu et al. 2018)
conveying swirling flows in the shaft. The flow entering e3 ¼ Q=ðπDs V3  cosαs Þ (5)
the vertical shaft is assumed to satisfy the free vortex
theory, according to which the angular momentum rV is Given two consecutive horizontal cross-sections of elevations
constant, with r as the rotational flow radius along the z and z + Δz, the momentum equation provides the velocity
spiral inlet. Given the approach flow velocity Vo and the components Vv,z+Δz and Vh,z+Δz (Jeanpierre and Lachal 1966) as
spiral end bottom slope αs, the resultant velocity V3 for r sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
  
= R3 (entrance in the vertical shaft) is thus known and, nλV z 2 V v;z 2
consequently, the axial (vertical) and tangential (horizontal) V v;zþΔz ¼ 1  cosαz   Δzþ  2g (6)
8ez g 2g
velocity components are V3v = V3∙sinαs and V3h = V3∙cosαs.

Figure 10. Average invert pressures p/Hu (from piezometers).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  
1 nλV z 2
V h;zþΔz ¼   cosαz 
cosαz 8ez g
where αz, Vz, Vv,z and Vh,z are, respectively, the rotational
flow angle, the velocity and the axial and tangential velocity
components, at the horizontal cross-section with elevation
z, and λ is the shaft resistance coefficient. Equations (6) and
(7) allow, thus, to derive Vz and Vh profiles along the vertical
shaft by knowing their boundary values at the shaft
entrance. The rotation angle (relative to the vertical) at
z is then obtained as


αz ¼ arctan Vh;z =Vv;z (8)
For each test, λ was computed by the approach of Zigrang
and Sylvester (1985) approach for the transition regime, in
accordance with the prototype Reynolds number R = 4eV/ν,
with ν as the water viscosity, ranging between about
6.21∙105 and 9.23∙106, and with the typical roughness
value for concrete pipes (Gisonni and Hager 2012). The
latter was adopted because the Cossonay VDS will be prob-
ably realized by using the concrete material. In Equations (6)
and (7), λ is multiplied by an n-factor to account for the
friction increase due to the centrifugal force (Akan 2006).
This factor was assumed to be constant along the shaft and
it was calibrated by minimizing the relative error between
the measured and predicted rotation angles and prelimina-
rily defined as n = 10∙FC (Figure 6).
The rotation angle distribution as well as the axial and
tangential velocity component profiles are respectively
shown in Figures 7 and 8, together with the measured
values. The angles from Equation (8) fit satisfactorily the
measurements for tests with large Froude numbers, i.e. Fo
≥ 3.36 (Figure 7(a–d)). A discrepancy is, instead, observed
for overload tests with Fo ≤ 2.50 (Figure 7(e–h)). In general,
URBAN WATER JOURNAL 231
for z/Ds < 10.0 the flow rotation diminished more rapidly in
the physical model than predicted, probably because the
centrifugal force affects the flow regime more relevantly as
soon as the flow leaves the spiral inlet. A better prediction
of the observed data might be achieved by adopting an n-
factor decreasing from the head to the bottom of the shaft.
Figure 8 shows normalized Vv/Vv,3 and Vh/Vh,3 profiles
along the shaft. If a shaft elevation L/Ds is fixed, then the
increase of Fo, or equivalently the decrease of Q, leads to
a reduction of both the axial (vertical) and tangential (hor-
izontal) velocity components. The axial velocity component
increases under gravity along the shaft (Figure 8(a)) until
attaining a constant value (quasi-uniform flow), whereas the
tangential component gradually decreases due to friction
(Figure 8(b)).
Dissipation chamber
The hydraulic performance of the dissipation chamber is a key
aspect for the safety of a VDS. Few data are presently avail-
able, suggesting a standard box-shaped chamber of
Kellenberger (1988; see also Gisonni and Hager 2012).
Particularly, the invert pressure distribution remains unknown.
V h;z 2 However:
 Δzþ  2g
2g
(7) ● maximum pressures due to the impact of the falling flow
(with sediments) are responsible for structural damage to
the invert, and
● pressure fluctuations create unstable outflow conditions,
with air entrainment and a risk to choke for the tailwater
tunnel.
In the present experimental campaign, the mixture flow
surface was visually derived. Then, the piezometers pro-
vided average pressure values at x/Lch = 0.01 (T1), 0.12
(T2), 0.24 (T3), 0.48 (T4), 0.72 (T5) and 0.96 (T6). In
a second test campaign, the transmitters were mounted at
the same locations x/Lch for tests A to E (Table 1), recording
pressure time-series, and thus giving useful information
about the pressure oscillations.
The dissipation chamber showed an adequate perfor-
mance in relation to the operation requirements described
by Gisonni and Hager (2012). Under the tested discharges,
a breakdown of the air circulation was not observed. Time-
averaged mixture flow free-surface levels are shown in
Figure 9(a). The outlet (0.7 < x/Lch < 1.0) of the chamber
was submerged by mixture-flow for the ‘design’ and ‘over-
load’ (Table 1) tests as Fo ≤ 2.50 (Figure 9(b)), whereas this
free-surface was preserved for all other tests. The maximum
mixture flow free-surface level hmax relative to the chamber
height Hch is plotted against FC in Figure 9(c). If FC < 0.46,
then the outlet of the chamber was not submerged and,
according to the chamber observations, hmax/Hch can be
estimated as:
hmax =Hch ¼ 1:50  ðFC Þ0:60 (9)
Contrarily, the outlet of the chamber was submerged
(hmax/Hch = 1.0) for FC ≥ 0.46 (overload tests from E to
232 G. CRISPINO ET AL.
Figure 11. Boxplots of the dynamic invert pressures p/Hu (from transmitters), for Fo = (a) 9.23, (b) 6.29, (c) 4.61, (d) 3.36, (e) 2.50.
H, see Table 1). Given the design parameters Q and Ds and
if an acceptable value of hmax is assumed, then Equation
(9) may be adopted to preliminarily design the dissipation
chamber height independently on the geometry compo-
nents upstream of the vertical shaft.
Figure 10 shows the normalized average invert pressures
p/Hu, as registered by the piezometers. Here, Hu = zu + (Vu2/2g)
is the energy head of the falling flow, where Vu = (Vv,u2 + Vh,u
2 0.5
) was derived by Equations (6) and (7) and zu coincides with
the chamber height Hch. Pressures decrease as the degree of
liberty augments (when leaving x/Lch = 0.00), with maximum
at x/Lch = 0.01 at the shaft flow impact (still guided by the
vertical chamber wall). Note that the flow does not rotate for
smaller discharges (Figure 5), so that its impact is not located
at the chamber backwall (x/Lch = 0.01) but slightly shifted
downstream between x/Lch = 0.01 and x/Lch = 0.24. However,
if a continuously decreasing pressure profile is assumed, then
the following relations may be utilized to predict the pressure
profiles in the dissipation chamber for 3.36 ≤ Fo ≤ 9.23 (tests
from A to D), with:
p=Hu ¼ 0:07  ðx=Lch Þ0:20 (10a)
and for 2.50 ≤ Fo ≤ 2.30 (tests from E to H):
p=Hu ¼ 0:08  ðx=Lch Þ0:25 (10b)
Both Equations (10a) and (10b) are valid for x/Lch ≥ 0.01.
For larger Fo (tests from A to D), values of around p/Hu = 0.18
are reached, indicating that only 18% of the incoming energy
head was detected at the invert. For moderate Fo (tests from
E to H), up to 32% of the incoming energy is transformed into
pressure head on the invert. Downstream of the impact, values of

Figure 12. Dynamic minimum and maximum invert pressures p/Hu (from
transmitters).
average pressure are equal to around 0.10∙Hu. This implies that
about 90% of the energy head at the shaft toe was dissipated,
mostly due to the jet impact on the invert.
Boxplots of the dynamic pressures (recorded by the trans-
mitters) are shown in Figure 11. They indicate that the normal-
ized pressure p/Hu measured at positions T1, T2 and T3 (shaft
outflow region) strongly fluctuated with a standard deviation
σ roughly equal to 0.15. Vice versa, there is hardly any fluctua-
tion in the pressure values for positions T4, T5 and T6 (down-
stream portion of the chamber). Figure 12 shows the relative
pressure profiles p/Hu in the chamber from the transmitters.
Their measurements confirm that the maximum pressure is
located at x/Lch = 0.01 for 2.50 < Fo < 4.61 (e. g. tests C, D and
E), with p/Hu ranging between 0.30∙and 0.55∙Hu. Oppositely,
a relative (Fo = 9.23, e. g. test A) and an absolute (Fo = 6.29,
e. g. test B) maximum was measured at x/Lch = 0.24 when the
flow leaving the shaft dissipated the rotational effect and it
probably achieved the quasi-uniform flow. Overall, some 30%
to 60% of the inflowing head manifest as instantaneous max-
imum pressures at the chamber invert. However, more inter-
esting are negative pressures at the flow impact region below
the shaft. Values of −0.20∙Hu were recorded, pointing at
a strong dynamic load of the invert with local negative pres-
sures that may cause the structural collapse also due to uplift
forces.
Conclusions
The results of an experimental vortex drop shaft investigation
are herein presented to fill the existing gaps concerning the
hydraulic operation of this drop manhole. Eight tests, all with
a supercritical approach flow, were performed and analysed.
The flow regime of the supercritical spiral inlet is governed
by shock waves. Differently from Hager (1990), two shock
waves occurred for approach flows with large Froude numbers
URBAN WATER JOURNAL 233
(i.e. Fo ≥ 6.29), whereas only one shock wave was detected for
moderate Froude numbers. The data analysis allowed for
proving that the maximum shock wave height is a function
of the bend number B. The resulting relation can be generally
employed for all inlet structures governed by deflecting flows
generating shock waves.
As regards to the vertical shaft, the measurement of the
rotational flow angle of the falling water indicated that the
rotational effect completely dissipated for Fo ≥ 6.29. For Fo ≤
4.61, the flow at the shaft toe still rotated, not showing a so-
called quasi-uniform flow condition. Based on the momentum
equation, an analytical description of the rotation angle and
velocity field along the shaft is presented. The latter approach
is applicable to vertical shafts controlled by whatever inlet
devices issuing a swirling flow. A future research to test the
reliability of the momentum equation approach will be desir-
able especially for overload conditions (e.g. Fo < 2.50).
The water level measurements in the dissipation chamber
highlighted that the chamber outlet was submerged for about
FC > 0.50. As regards to the pressure regime, the bottom of the
chamber just below the shaft outflow is a crucial region which
should be conveniently protected against local damages due to
the flow impact. Here, the maximum pressure indicatively ranged
between 0.18 and 0.60 times the energy head Hu. Based on the
experimental observations, general relations for preliminary esti-
mation of the chamber height and the pressure profile in the
chamber are proposed. These equations are theoretically valid
for standard types of vortex drop shafts with a dissipation
chamber.
Acknowledgements
The support of the municipality of Cossonay and of the Laboratory of Hydraulic
Structures (LCH) of École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), where the
experiments were conducted, is sincerely appreciated. In addition, Gaetano
Crispino acknowledges the funding program “VALERE” (2018) by Università
della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, which supported his research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
G. Crispino http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3889-1115
C. Gisonni http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9220-2149
References
Akan, A. O. 2006. Open Channel Hydraulics. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Camino, G. A., D. Z. Zhu, and N. Rajaratnam. 2014. “Flow Observations in
Tall Plunging Flow Dropshafts.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 141 (1):
06014020. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000939,06014020.
Crispino, G., D. Dorthe, T. Fuchsmann, C. Gisonni, and M. Pfister. 2016. “Junction
Chamber at Vortex Drop Shaft: Case Study of Cossonay.” In Hydraulic
Structures and Water System Management, edited by B. M. Crookston and
B. P. Tullis, 437–446. Logan, UT: Utah State University, DigitalCommons.
De Martino, F., C. Gisonni, and W. H. Hager. 2002. “Drop in Combined Sewer
Manhole for Supercritical Flow.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering 128 (6): 397–400. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2002)
128:6(397).
234 G. CRISPINO ET AL.
Del Giudice, G., C. Gisonni, and G. Rasulo. 2008. “Vortex Shaft Outlet.” In
Advances in Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, edited by
C. Zhang and H. Tang, 2053–2058. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Del Giudice, G., C. Gisonni, and G. Rasulo. 2010. “Design of a Scroll Vortex
Inlet for Supercritical Approach Flow.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
136 (10): 837–841. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000249.
Drioli, C. 1969. “Installazioni Con Pozzo Di Scarico a Vortice [installations
with a Vortex Drop].” L’Energia Elettrica 24 (10): 447–452.
Gisonni, C., and W. H. Hager. 2012. Idraulica Dei Sistemi Fognari: Dalla
Teoria Alla Pratica [wastewater Hydraulics: From Theory to Practice].
Milan: Springer-Verlag.
Hager, W. H. 1990. “Vortex Drop Inlet for Supercritical Approaching Flow.”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 116 (8): 1048–1054. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(1990)116:8(1048).
Hager, W. H. 2010. Wastewater Hydraulics: From Theory to Practice. 2nd ed.
Berlin: Springer.
Hager, W. H., and M. H. Kellenberger. 1987. “Die Dimensionierung Des
Wirbelfallschachtes [The Design of the Vortex Drop].” Gas- und
Wasserfach (gwf). Wasser, Abwasser 128 (11): 582–590.
Jain, S. C. 1984. “Tangential Vortex-inlet.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
110 (12): 1693–1699. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1984)110:12(1693).
Jain, S. C. 1987. “Free-surface Swirling Flows in Vertical Dropshaft.” Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 113 (10): 1277–1289. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1987)113:10(1277).
Jain, S. C., and J. F. Kennedy. 1983. Vortex-flow Drop Structures for the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Inline Storage System. IIHR Rep.
264. Iowa City, IA: Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa.
Jeanpierre, D., and A. Lachal. 1966. “Dissipation D’energie Dans Un Puits
a Vortex [energy Dissipation across a Vortex Drop Shaft].” La Houille
Blanche 7: 823–832. doi:10.1051/lhb/1966052.
Kellenberger, M. 1988. “Wirbelfallschächte in der Kanalisationstechnik [Vortex
drops in sewers].” PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich.
Knauss, J. 1987. Swirling Flow Problems at Intakes: Hydraulic Structures
Design Manual. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Liu, Z. P., X. L. Guo, Q. F. Xia, H. Fu, T. Wang, and X. L. Dong. 2018.
“Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Flow in a Newly
Developed Vortex Drop Shaft Spillway.” Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 144 (5): 04018014. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0001444.
Motzet, K. M., and F. Valentin. 2002. “Efficiency of a Vortex Chamber with
Horizontal Bottom under Supercritical Flow.” In Proceedings of IX
International Conference on Urban Drainage (9ICUD), 1–11. Portland,
Oregon: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Pfister, M., and H. Chanson. 2014. “Two-phase Air-water Flows: Scale
Effects in Physical Modeling.” Journal of Hydrodynamics 26 (2):
291–298. doi:10.1016/S1001-6058(14)60032-9.
Pfister, M., G. Crispino, T. Fuchsmann, J. M. Ribi, and C. Gisonni. 2018.
“Multiple Inflow Branches at Supercritical-type Vortex Drop Shaft.”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 144 (11): 05018008. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001530.
Quick, M. C. 1990. “Analysis of Spiral Vortex and Vertical Slot Vortex Drop
Shafts.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 116 (3): 309–325. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(1990)116:3(309).
Reinauer, R., and W. H. Hager. 1997. “Supercritical Bend Flow.” Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 123 (3): 208–218. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429-
(1997)123:3(208).
Vischer, D. L., and W. H. Hager. 1995. “Vortex Drops.” In Energy Dissipators:
Hydraulic Structures Design Manual, edited by CRC Press, 167–181. Vol. 9
(9). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
Yu, D., and J. H. W. Lee. 2009. “Hydraulics of Tangential Vortex Intake for
Urban Drainage.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 135 (3): 164–174.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:3(164).
Zhao, C. H., D. Z. Zhu, S. K. Sun, and Z. P. Liu. 2006. “Experimental Study of
Flow in a Vortex Drop Shaft.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 132 (1):
61–68. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:1(61).
Zigrang, D. J., and N. D. Sylvester. 1985. “Discussion of “A Simple Explicit
Formula for the Estimation of Pipe Friction Factor”. By J.J.J. Chen.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 79: 218–219.