DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SUBMERGENCE DEPTH AT

HORIZONTAL INTAKES

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

EMRE HASPOLAT

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING

SEPTEMBER 2015
 Approval of the thesis:

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SUBMERGENCE DEPTH AT

HORIZONTAL INTAKES

submitted by EMRE HASPOLAT in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering Department, Middle
East Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Gülbin Dural Ünver __________

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cevdet Yalçıner __________

Head of Department, Civil Engineering

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Göğüş __________

Supervisor, Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mete Köken __________

Co-Supervisor, Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Nevzat Yıldırım ________________

Civil Engineering Dept., Gazi University

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Göğüş ________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. İsmail Aydın ________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. [Link] Altan Sakarya ________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mete Köken ________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU
Date: 10.09.2015
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained
and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also
declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and
referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name: Emre HASPOLAT

Signature:

iv
 ABSTRACT

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SUBMERGENCE DEPTH AT

HORIZONTAL INTAKES

Haspolat, Emre

M.S., Department of Civil Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mustafa Göğüş

Co-Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mete Köken

September 2015, 142 pages

The purpose of the study is to investigate the formation of air entraining vortices
under both symmetrical and asymmetrical approach flow conditions in an
experimental setup of a horizontal water intake structure composed of a
reservoir-pipe system. To determine at which critical submergence the air
entraining vortices forming; a series of experiments were conducted in the
experimental setup with horizontal pipes of four different diameters. Approach
channel side walls of the intake structure model are adjustable to create either
symmetrical or asymmetrical approach flow towards the intake. Based on
dimensional analysis, a dimensionless equation for the critical submergence was
derived as a function of related hydraulic and geometric parameters. Empirical
equations were derived for the critical submergence by using regression analysis
and they were compared with similar ones available in the literature. Model scale
effects on the values of experimentally measured critical submergence data were
investigated and it was shown that neglecting some of the important flow
parameters in the application of model laws causes significant variations on the
values of critical submergence. To eliminate the formation of air-entraining
v
vortices in front of the intake structure floating rafts of various dimensions were
tested as anti-vortex devices and very succesful results were obtained.

Keywords: Horizontal intakes, Scale effect, Air-entraining vortices, Critical

submergence, Floating rafts.

vi
 ÖZ

YATAY SU ALMA YAPILARINDA KRİTİK BATIKLIĞIN

BELİRLENMESİ

Haspolat, Emre

Yüksek Lisans, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Mustafa Göğüş

Ortak Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Mete Köken

Eylül 2015, 142 sayfa

Bu çalışmanın amacı rezervuar-boru sisteminden oluşan yatay bir su alma yapısı

deney düzeneğinde simetrik ve asimetrik akım koşulları altında hava girişli
girdapların oluşmasının incelenmesidir. Hava girişli girdapların hangi kritik
batıklık derinliğinde oluştuğunu belirlemek için dört farklı çapta yatay boru ile
deney düzeneğinde bir dizi deneyler yapılmıştır. Su alma yapısına doğru simetrik
veya asimetrik akım şartlarının oluşturulabilmesi için su alma yapısı modelinin
yaklaşım kanalı yan duvarları ayarlanabilir özelliktedir. Boyut analizine
istinaden kritik batıklık için hidrolik ve geometrik parametrelerin fonksiyonu
olan boyutsuz bir denklem elde edilmiştir. Kritik batıklık için regrasyon analizi
ile ampirik denklemler türetilmiş olup literatürdeki benzerleriyle
karşılaştırılmıştır. Deneysel olarak ölçülen kritik batıklık veri değerleri
üzerindeki model ölçek etkisi araştırılmış ve model kanunlarının uygulamasında
bazı önemli akım parametre ihmallerinin kritik batıklık değerlerleri üzerinde
önemli değişikliklere yol açtığı gösterilmiştir. Hava girişli girdapların

vii
oluşumunu gidermek adına girdap önleyici düzenek olarak çeşitli boyutlardaki
yüzer plakalar denenmiş ve çok başarılı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yatay su alma yapıları, Ölçek etkisi, Hava girişli girdaplar,
Kritik batıklık derinliği, Yüzer plakalar.

viii
To my mother

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This academic study could not exists without perfect guides. Thus, I would like
to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Mustafa GÖĞÜŞ and co-supervisor
[Link]. Mete KÖKEN for their patience, continious support and
encouragement throughout this study.

I would like to give my special thanks to my parents who are my endless source
of peace and happiness.

I would like to thank my brothers Özkan AKARÇAY, Batuhan BALCI, Oğuz

KIRKMALI and my friend Sevgi CANVER and my life coach Özer
ÇETİNKAYA for their great support and friendship.

I spent most of my time at laboratory to conduct experiments. Each experimental

study requires technical arrangements and support. So, I would like to thank our
laboratory technicians and mention old hand, master of our skilled technique
works and laboratory Turgut URAL, you will always be on our minds and in our
hearts with your skillful works.

I would like to thank also Ali Ersin DİNÇER, Kutay YILMAZ, Cüneyt YAVUZ,
Ahmet Nazım ŞAHİN, Serkan GÖKMENER and Ezgi KÖKER for their
support, helpfulness and friendship during my study period.

The last but most important part is reserved to thank for a special person who is
the hero of behind this success, my will to live, my past, present and future, my
love Miray BALAMAN.

This study was supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological

Research Council of Turkey) under Project No: 113M326.

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. v
ÖZ ................................................................................................................ vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................... x
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. xi
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................ xxvi
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1. Importance of Vortices on Design and Operation of Hydraulic
Structures ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Definition of the Critical Submergence................................................ 3
1.3. Main Reasons of Vortex Formation in Free Surface ............................ 4
1.4. Hydraulic Problems caused by Vortex Formation ............................... 4
1.5. Types of Intakes ................................................................................... 5
1.6. Types of Vortices ................................................................................. 7
1.7. Prevention of Vortex ............................................................................ 9
1.8. Scope of the Study .............................................................................. 10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 13
3. MODELLING OF AIR ENTRAINING VORTICES ............................. 27
3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 27
3.2. Application of Dimensional Analysis to the Related Parameters ...... 28
3.3. Effect of Froude Number ................................................................... 31
3.4. Effect of Reynolds Number ................................................................ 31
3.5. Effect of Weber Number .................................................................... 31
3.6. Effect of Kolf Number ....................................................................... 32

xi
4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 33
4.1. Experimental Setup.............................................................................. 33
4.2. Experimental Methodology ................................................................. 37
4.3. Vortex Observations ............................................................................ 38
5. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS .................................................................................................... 41
5.1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 41
5.2. Symmetrical Approach Flow Conditions ............................................ 42
5.2.1. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters under
Symmetrical Approach Flow Conditions................................................ 42
5.2.2. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for the
data of Zaloğlu (2014) and Present Study under Symmetrical
Approach Flow Conditions ..................................................................... 49
5.2.3. Effect of Wall Clearances on the Critical Submergence ............ 54
5.2.4. Comparison of Present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) Studies with
Baykara’s (2013) ..................................................................................... 59
5.2.5. Empirical Formula Derivation for Dimensionless Critical
Submergence ........................................................................................... 71
[Link]. The General Case ................................................................ 71
[Link]. Simplified Empirical Equations for Sc/Di ........................... 73
5.2.6. Scale Effect Analysis for Sc/Di under Symmetrical Approach
Flow Conditions ...................................................................................... 75
5.2.7. Comparison of Equation 5.4 with Similar Ones in Literature .... 83
5.2.8. Prevention of Vortices in Symmetrical Approach Flow
Conditions ............................................................................................... 85
5.3. Asymmetrical Approach Flow Conditions .......................................... 88
5.3.1. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for the
Present Study under Asymmetrical Approach Flow Conditions ............ 89
5.3.2 Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for
the data of Zaloğlu (2014) and Present Study under Asymmetrical
Approach Flow Conditions ..................................................................... 96
xii
 5.3.3. Empirical Formula Derivation for Dimensionless Critical
Submergence ......................................................................................... 103
[Link]. The General Case ...............................................................103
[Link]. Simplified Empirical Equations for Sc/Di ..........................104
5.3.4. Scale Effect Analysis for Sc/Di under Asymmetrical Approach
Flow Conditions .................................................................................... 106
5.3.5. Comparison of Equation 5.11 with Similar Ones in Literature 111
5.3.6. Prevention of Vortices in Asymmetrical Approach Flow
Conditions ............................................................................................. 113
6. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 117
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 121
APPENDICES
A. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SYMMETRICAL APPROACH
FLOW...................................................................................................... 125
B .EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF ASYMMETRICAL APPROACH
FLOW...................................................................................................... 131

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 5.1: The ranges of the important parameters used and calculated in the
experiment of the symmetrical approach flow conditions.................... 42
Table 5.2 Limit values of 2b/Di, Fr, Re and We above which Sc/Di is
independent of 2b/Di (Baykara, 2013) .................................................. 71
Table 5.3 Limit values of 2b/Di of which experimental data were used in the
derivation of Equation 5.1 .................................................................... 72
Table 5.4: Hydraulic and geometric parameters used in the analysis of scale
effect ..................................................................................................... 76
Table 5.5 Performance of floating rafts under symmetrical approach flow
conditions.............................................................................................. 87
Table 5.6 Data of most effective floating rafts ................................................. 88
Table 5.7: The ranges of the important parameters used and calculated in the
experiments of the asymmetrical approach flow conditions ................ 88
Table 5.8 Limit values of ψ, Fr, Re and We above which are preferred to
used. .................................................................................................... 102
Table 5.9: Hydraulic and geometric parameters used in the analysis of scale
effect for asymmetric approach flow conditions ................................ 106
Table 5.10 Performance of floating rafts under asymmetrical approach flow
conditions............................................................................................ 114
Table 5.11 Data of most effective floating rafts ............................................. 116
Table A.1. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 30 cm ........................... 125
Table A.2. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 40 cm ........................... 126
Table A.3. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 50 cm ........................... 126

xiv
Table A.4. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 60 cm............................126
Table A.5. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 30 cm............................127
Table A.6. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 40 cm............................127
Table A.7. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 50 cm............................127
Table A.8. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 60 cm............................128
Table A.9. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 70 cm............................128
Table A.10. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 20 cm............................128
Table A.11. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 30 cm............................129
Table A.12. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 40 cm............................129
Table A.13. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 20 cm..............................129
Table A.14. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 30 cm..............................130
Table A.15. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 40 cm..............................130
Table A.16. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 50 cm..............................130
Table B.1. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm ....131
Table B.2. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm ....131

xv
Table B.3. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=60 cm ... 132
Table B.4. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm ... 132
Table B.5. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=60 cm ... 132
Table B.6. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm ... 133
Table B.7. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm ... 133
Table B.8. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm ... 133
Table B.9. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm ... 134
Table B.10. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=60 cm ... 134
Table B.11. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=70 cm ... 134
Table B.12. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm ... 135
Table B.13. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm ... 135
Table B.14. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=60 cm ... 135
Table B.15. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=70 cm ... 136
Table B.16. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm ... 136
Table B.17. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=60 cm ... 136

xvi
Table B.18. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=70 cm ....137
Table B.19. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm ....137
Table B.20. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=70 cm ....137
Table B.21. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 60 cm and b2=70 cm ....138
Table B.22. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm ....138
Table B.23. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm ....138
Table B.24. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm ....139
Table B.25. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm ....139
Table B.26. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm ....139
Table B.27. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm ....140
Table B.28. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm ....140
Table B.29. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm ......140
Table B.30. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm ......141
Table B.31. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm ......141
Table B.32. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm ......141

xvii
Table B.33. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm ..... 142
Table B.34. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm ..... 142

xviii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 1.1 : Critical submergences of various intake structures (Knauss,
1987) ........................................................................................................3
Figure 1.2: Reasons of vorticity: a) Eccentric place of intake b) Velocity
Gradients c) Obstruction in flow field. (Durgin and Hecker,1978) ........4
Figure 1.3: Types of intakes according to Knauss (1987) ...................................6
Figure 1.4: Visual indication of vortices according to their strengths
(Baykara, 2013) .......................................................................................7
Figure 1.5: Types of vortex according to Alden Research Laboratory
(Knauss 1987) ..........................................................................................9
Figure 2.1: Plotting of compiled data from past studies of existing intakes
and model studies (Gulliver and Rindels, 1983) ...................................20
Figure 2.2: Limit values of 2b/Di and Fr for intake diameter Di above which
Sc/Di is independent of 2b/Di.................................................................23
Figure 3.1: A sketch of a horizontal intake structure with related parameters
...............................................................................................................29
Figure 4.1: Plan view of the experimental setup without pump (Zaloğlu,
2014) ......................................................................................................34
Figure 4.2: Side view of the experimental setup (Zaloğlu, 2014) .....................35
Figure 4.3: General view of the experimental setup with Di=5 cm pipe and
pump ......................................................................................................35
Figure 4.4: General view of the experimental setup without pump ..................36
Figure 4.5: Experiment setup with intake pipe of Di =30 cm (without pump)
...............................................................................................................36
Figure 4.6: Some of the wooden floating rafts used in the tests (dimensions
in cm) .....................................................................................................37

xix
Figure 4.7: Top view of a type-5 vortex which is pulling air bubble into the
intake. ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.8: Front view of a type-5 vortex which is formed near the left side
wall. ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.9: A type-6 vortex with a continuous full air core from near the left
side wall towards intake. ...................................................................... 40
Figure 5.1: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 43
Figure 5.2: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 43
Figure 5.3: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 44
Figure 5.4: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 44
Figure 5.5: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 45
Figure 5.6: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 45
Figure 5.7: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 46
Figure 5.8: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 46
Figure 5.9: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 47
Figure 5.10: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 47
Figure 5.11: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 48
Figure 5.12: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 48

xx
Figure 5.13: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ......................................................................49
Figure 5.14: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ......................................................................50
Figure 5.15: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ......................................................................50
Figure 5.16: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm .............................................................................................51
Figure 5.17: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm .............................................................................................51
Figure 5.18: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm .............................................................................................52
Figure 5.19: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm .............................................................................................52
Figure 5.20: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm .............................................................................................53
Figure 5.21: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm .............................................................................................53
Figure 5.22: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=30 cm ........................................................................55
Figure 5.23: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=25 cm ........................................................................55
Figure 5.24: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25 cm .....................................................................56
Figure 5.25: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study and Zaloğlu (2014), Di = 25 cm ......................................56
Figure 5.26: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=19.4 cm ..................................................................57
Figure 5.27: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=14.4 cm ..................................................................57

xxi
Figure 5.28: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=10 cm ....................................................................... 58
Figure 5.29: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=5 cm ......................................................................... 58
Figure 5.30: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=30 cm ............................... 60
Figure 5.31: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=30 cm ........................... 60
Figure 5.32: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=30 cm ................................ 61
Figure 5.33: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with
Baykara’s (2013) for the variation of Sc/Di with Froude number,
Di=25 cm .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.34: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with
Baykara’s (2013) for the variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number,
Di=25cm ............................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.35: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with
Baykara’s (2013) for the variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di
=25 cm .................................................................................................. 64
Figure 5.36: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=19.4 cm................. 65
Figure 5.37: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=19.4 cm ............. 65
Figure 5.38: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=19.4 cm ................. 66
Figure 5.39: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=14.4 cm................. 66
Figure 5.40: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=14.4 cm ............. 67
Figure 5.41: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013)
for the variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=14.4 cm ................. 67
xxii
Figure 5.42: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=10 cm ................................68
Figure 5.43: Comparison of present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=10 cm ............................68
Figure 5.44: Comparison of present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=10 cm.................................69
Figure 5.45: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=5 cm ..................................69
Figure 5.46: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=5 cm ..............................70
Figure 5.47: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=5 cm...................................70
Figure 5.48: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.1 for
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................72
Figure 5.49: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.2 for
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................73
Figure 5.50: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.3 for
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................74
Figure 5.51: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.4 for
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................74
Figure 5.52: (Sc/Di)r vs Fr for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions ......................................................................79
Figure 5.53: (Sc/Di)r vs Lr for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions ......................................................................80
Figure 5.54: (Sc/Di)r vs (Re)r for scale effect investigation under
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................80
Figure 5.55: (Sc/Di)r vs (We)r for scale effect investigation under
symmetrical approach flow conditions ..................................................81
Figure 5.56: Comparison of present study with past studies of Gordon
(1970), Reddy and Pickford (1972) and Baykara (2013) ......................84

xxiii
Figure 5.57: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 89
Figure 5.58: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 90
Figure 5.59: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=30 cm ............................................................................ 90
Figure 5.60: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 91
Figure 5.61: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 91
Figure 5.62: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=25 cm ............................................................................ 92
Figure 5.63: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 92
Figure 5.64: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 93
Figure 5.65: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=10 cm ............................................................................ 93
Figure 5.66: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 94
Figure 5.67: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 94
Figure 5.68: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions, Di=5 cm .............................................................................. 95
Figure 5.69: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ..................................................................... 96
Figure 5.70: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ..................................................................... 97
Figure 5.71: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm ..................................................................... 98

xxiv
Figure 5.72: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm .............................................................................................99
Figure 5.73: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm .............................................................................................99
Figure 5.74: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm ...........................................................................................100
Figure 5.75: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm ...........................................................................................100
Figure 5.76: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm ...........................................................................................101
Figure 5.77: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm ...........................................................................................101
Figure 5.78: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.1 for
asymmetrical approach flow conditions ..............................................103
Figure 5.79: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.9 for
asymmetrical approach flow conditions ..............................................104
Figure 5.80: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.10 for
asymmetrical approach flow conditions ..............................................105
Figure 5.81: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.11 for
asymmetrical approach flow conditions ..............................................105
Figure 5.82: (Sc/Di)r vs Fr for scale effect investigation under asymmetrical
approach flow conditions ....................................................................108
Figure 5.83: (Sc/Di)r vs Lr for scale effect investigation under asymmetrical
approach flow conditions ....................................................................108
Figure 5.84: (Sc/Di)r vs (Re)r for scale effect investigation under
symmetrical approach flow conditions ................................................109
Figure 5.85: (Sc/Di)r vs (We)r for scale effect investigation under
symmetrical approach flow conditions ................................................109
Figure 5.86: Comparison of present study with past studies of Gordon
(1970), Reddy and Pickford (1972) and Baykara (2013) ....................113

xxv
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

a Intake gate height

b Horizontal distance from the center of the intake to a side wall of the
reservoir for symmetrical approach flow conditions
b1 Small side wall clearance for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions
b2 Large side wall clearance for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions
c Vertical distance between the lowest point of the intake pipe and
reservoir bottom
c1 Regression variable
c2 Regression variable
c3 Regression variable
c4 Regression variable
Di Intake diameter
Fr Intake Froude number
g Gravity acceleration
h The depth of water above centerline of the intake
H Submergence for vertical intakes
Ko Intake Kolf number
Γ Average circulation imposed to flow
Qi Intake discharge
R Correlation coefficient
Re Intake Reynolds number
ReR Radial Reynolds number
Sc Critical submergence measured from the summit point of horizontal
intakes

xxvi
S c* Critical submergence measured from the center of horizontal intakes
Vi Average velocity of the flow at the intake pipe
ν Kinematic viscosity of water
ρ Density of the fluid
μ Dynamic viscosity of the fluid
βs Scale effect correction coefficient for symmetrical approach flow
conditions
βa Scale effect correction coefficient for asymmetrical approach flow
conditions
σ Surface tension of the fluid
We Intake Weber number

xxvii
xxviii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Importance of Vortices on Design and Operation of Hydraulic

Structures

From past to now, many dams and reservoirs are built to supply vital
requirements of humanity such as drinkable water, irrigation, energy and flood
protection. There is no alternative choice to supply water to cities or irrigation
areas or prevent settlements from flood by other means than designing a dam.
On the other hand, for energy production, many solutions can be found such as
thermal or nuclear power plants. However, these types of plants have many
disadvantages in terms of environmental problems and they use exhaustable
resources. If one consider the most environmentalist and sustainable way to
produce energy, hydropower will be an answer as a most effective solution
between clean and sustainable energy systems. Thus, it can be concluded that
dams are essential structures with regard to aforementioned aspects for human
lives.

Water is not only vital but also limited life source of humanity; so effective usage
of water should be main consideration in designing and operation of dams.
Effective usage of water can be provided with proper design of intake structures.
In other words, design of intakes have an important place in design process of
dams. Intakes are mainly designed according to two important criteria; one of
them is construction cost of the intake. If intake is aimed to be placed near the

1
bottom of the reservoir, its construction cost will be large and the risk of
excessive sediment drawing from the reservoir to intakes should also be taken
into consideration. On the other hand, construction of the intake near the bottom
of the reservoir has two main advantages which are effective usage of reservoir
and prevention of vortex formations via sufficient submergence. If the intake is
tried to be constructed near the free surface of the reservoir to reduce the cost
such as low-head intakes, vortex phenomena will be the main issue for the intake
structure. Thus, designing of dam is turned into an optimization problem
between cost and hydraulic efficiency. Formation of free surface vortices is a
kind of phenomena which have too complex flow pattern to define it analytically
or mathematically alone itself. Thus, model studies were usually conducted to
prevent costly failures and to gather necessary information before final design of
the prototype. Moreover, vortices can entrain large amount of air into the
pressurized pipe system, so it will decrease discharge of the closed conduit or
pipe. For example, spillways constructed as closed conduit such as shaft
spillways may not provide required discharge and dam will be overtopped and
failed because of the decreased discharge capacity of the spillway which is the
result of large amount of air entrainment. All these crucial safety issues make
vortex phenomena as an important event in addition to cost and other aspects. In
addition to design consideration of dams, formation of vortex is also a problem
for many existing dams because of their operational requirements. To prevent
formation of these vortices for existing structures, in literature, many devices
were developed as anti-vortex structures such as submerged and floating rafts.

Consequently, the main reason behind the formation of vortex is insufficient

submergence. So, while a dam is being operated, the reservoir level should be
remained above the critical submergence. If the required depth to prevent vortex
formation in the reservoir is known, problems which are faced in the design and
operation stages of the dam can be overcame easily.

2
1.2. Definition of the Critical Submergence

Submergence can be defined as the vertical distance between the free surface
and the intake. In practice, there are many types of intakes in terms of direction
of flow. These intakes can be constructed in the form of flush mounted or a
protruded pipe in the reservoir part. Thus, there is not only one and exact critical
submergence definition in literature inherently. For horizontal pipes, the critical
submergence is mainly described as a vertical distance between free surface and
the summit point of the horizontal intake pipe when swirling motions or air
pulling vortices start to form on the free surface. In addition to these, some
researches defined critical submergence as a vertical distance between the free
surface and central axis of the horizontal pipe. These two definitions are nearly
the same, the difference is only Di/2 in their magnitude. In literature, the critical
submergence is mainly shown by Sc. Prevention of vortices in a reservoir can be
achieved by providing sufficient submergence which is above critical
submergence regardless of using vortex prevention devices. Figure 1.1 shows
the critical submergences according to different intake types and flow directions.

Figure 1.1 : Critical submergences of various intake structures (Knauss, 1987)

3
1.3. Main Reasons of Vortex Formation in Free Surface

In past studies, many researchers investigated the reasons behind the formation
of vortices. They made many experiments and decided that one of the strongest
reason on the formation of vortices is asymmetrical approach flow relative to the
place of intake due to geometrical arrangement of the reservoir. One of these
studies related with reasons of vortex formation was conducted by Durgin and
Hecker in 1978. Results of their study showed that there were three main reasons
that trigger the formation of vortices as given below (Figure 1.2);

- Eccentric placement of intakes relative to symmetrical approach flow

- Shear layers caused by high velocity gradients
- Rotational wakes caused by obstruction in the flow field behind
obstruction.

Figure 1.2: Reasons of vorticity: a) Eccentric place of intake b) Velocity

Gradients c) Obstruction in flow field. (Durgin and Hecker,1978)

1.4. Hydraulic Problems caused by Vortex Formation

In literature, some researchers conducted studies to investigate and show the

detrimental effects of vortex formation. Padmanabhan and Hecker (1984) stated
that even non-air entraining vortices are strong enough to cause vibrations and
create problems in the system. Knauss (1987) conducted a survey about the
results of vortices and deduced that two main results which are vibrations in
hydraulic devices like turbine and cavitation problem in closed conduit

4
structures like penstocks. Besides these problems, Knauss summarized other
problems caused by air ingesting vortex as defined below;

- Increase of head loss in the system.

- Decrease of discharge.
- Decrease in efficiency of hydraulic equipment due to fluctuations in the
flow rate.
- Due to air ingestion having vibrations and cavitation problems at hydraulic
machines.

1.5. Types of Intakes

Definition of the critical submergence is mostly related with the position of

intake as mentioned above. In addition to the orientation of the intake, structural
type of the intake also affects definition of critical submergence directly. In
literature, Knauss (1987) classified intakes according to their direction and
structural distinction as shown in Figure 1.3.

5
Figure 1.3: Types of intakes according to Knauss (1987)

6
1.6. Types of Vortices

In literature, vortices are classified according to consideration of different

concepts such as location and strength of vortices. Formation place of vortex is
also divided into two groups: free surface vortex and subsurface vortex. Free
surface vortices start as a swirling motion at the free surface and then are
transformed into cone which has an air core tail reaching up to the intake at its
final stages. Subsurface vortices generally form at the bottom and walls of the
reservoir and cause swirling motion into the intakes. However, this classification
type is not sufficient and comprehensive to express all features of vortex. Thus,
vortex classification is usually performed according to the strength of vortices.
The most practical and effective way to classify vortex is done by visual
observation as Knauss (1987) mentioned in the study of Alden Research
Laboratory (ARL). Although this classification type is very subjective, this is
one of the most common used classification method because of its practicality.
In that study, some terms were used to define the formation steps of vortices like
swirl (eddy), dimples and vortex tails. These terms are shown in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Visual indication of vortices according to their strengths

(Baykara, 2013)

A complete vortex structure has some specific formation steps throughout its
generation period. Firstly, when the water level in reservoir is converging to
critical submergence, eddies start to be formed in free surface. Eddies can be
seen as cracks on the surface. After that, eddies turn into dimples by gaining
strength which can be seen by naked eyes easily and finally dimples transformed
7
into vortex tail which pulls air into the intake. This is the final and strongest stage
between the formation steps of vortices. In addition to that brief explanation, in
literature, vortex is classified and divided into six groups according to its
appearance which is conducted by ARL as shown in Figure 1.5;

1. Little swirls form at the free surface.

2. Swirling motion turns into surface dimples which are stronger than
swirls.
3. Dimples make a tail towards the intake which can be seen by adding a
dye to water. This stage is called as dye core to intake.
4. In this stage, the strength of the vortices increase and they start pulling
floating objects such as trashes into the intakes by means of their tails but
sucking of air is not occurred.
5. With gaining more strength, in that stage, vortex can pull air from free
surface and transmit it in the form of bubbles into intakes.
6. This is the strongest type of vortex which pull air from surface towards
the entrance of the intake as continuous air core. Vortex body has a
conical shape and air core tail is elongated from the surface to the intake
as a rope.

8
 Figure 1.5: Types of vortex according to Alden Research Laboratory (Knauss
1987)

1.7. Prevention of Vortex

Importance of vortices on design and operational conditions are mentioned

above. However, in design stages, due to economical or some structural reasons,
intakes can not be designed properly regarding formation of vortices. Moreover,
undesirable changes in dam reservoir such as failure of side slopes into reservoir
or wind will lead to asymmetrical approach flow, where vortex formation
becomes inevitable at intakes most of the time. Thus, essential precautions
9
should be taken to cease vortex formation at reservoir site. In past studies, some
anti-vortex devices were defined such as floating and submerged rafts. These
kind of devices may prevent formation of the vortices totally or decrease their
strength in an existing reservoir.

1.8. Scope of the Study

An experimental study regarding the formation and prevention of air entraining

vortices at horizontal intakes had been completed by Baykara (2013) in an
experimental setup with a pump by using six pipes of different diameters under
symmetrical approach flow conditions. Later on Zaloğlu (2014) used the same
experimental setup without a pump and conducted similar experiments with
three pipes of different diameters under symmetrical and asymmetrical approach
flow conditions to get more data mostly at smaller Froude numbers than those
used by Baykara (2013). In the present study, the remaining three pipes were
used to complete the whole pipe set tested by Baykara (2013) with and without
pump in the system under symmetrical and asymmetrical approach flow
conditions. Both studies; Zaloğlu’s (2014) and present study, are within the
scope of a TÜBİTAK project named and numbered as ‘Tekli ve Çoklu Yatay Su
Alma Yapısı Bulunan Hidroelektrik Santrallerinde Girdap Oluşumu ve
Önlenmesi İçin Gerekli Düzeneklerin Belirlenmesi, 113M326’.

In this study, a series of experiments were performed for a preselected intake

having symmetrical and asymmetrical adjustable side walls in the approach
channel of the experimental setup and the critical submergences of the air
entraining vortices were determined. After providing these data, they were
related with the important hydraulic and geometric parameters of the intake
structure considering the previously obtained data from the same setup.
Empirical equations were derived for the dimensionless critical submergence
and anti-vortex devices were tested to eliminate the formation of air entraining
vortices. Chapter 2 presents a literature review related to similar topics. In
Chapter 3, theoretical considerations for the determination of critical

10
submergence are given. Chapter 4 describes the experimental setup and
procedure. Analysis and evaluation of the experimental results are discussed in
Chapter 5. Finally, in Chapter 6, conclusions and recommendations are
presented.

11
12
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Anwar (1967) studied vortices at low head vertical intakes with the help of
theoretical study and conducting experiments in laboratory. Experiments were
conducted in a circular tank the top of which was closed. Anwar stated that the
performance can be increased with using floating raft on the surface where
vortices are formed in existing installations due to inadequate design.

Anwar (1968) conducted a study about prevention of vortices at intakes. This

study presents both theoretical and experimental results for different type of flow
and prevention of swirl and vortex occurance. It was stated that formation of the
vortex is mainly caused by insufficient submergence of intake and swirl of
approach flow. Anwar also showed that weak vortices or deep dimples were
independent from radial Reynolds number when ReR> 103. Moreover, it was
mentioned that vortex formation at intakes could be supressed with the
increasing of radial Reynolds number which can be acquired by adding excessive
roughness at the rigid boundaries. These excessive roughnesses can be provided
with little structural alteration or using of floating raft above the inlet.

Gordon (1970) studied vortices at existing 29 low-head hydroelectric intakes

which have the same general configuration. In this study, Anwar and Denny’s
model studies on vortices were mentioned, but Gordon stated that considerable
scale effect may be occurred in their study because of ignoring viscosity and

13
some forces governing the entrainment of air. Moreover, Gordon mentioned
factors which are affecting the formation of vortices as;

- The geometry of the approaching flow to intake

- Velocity at the intake
- Size of the intake and the submergence

In this study, it was decided to focus on searching the effects of velocity, intake
size and submergence level on vortex formation, because it was stated that the
geometry of the approach flow is unique and characteristic for each intake. In
addition to that, submergence S was assumed to be function of velocity V and
gate height, D. Also, it was remarked that measuring of submergence from
surface to top of the gate provide a better relationship in formula. Two formulas
were generated to estimate the critical submergence under symmetrical and
asymmetrical approach flow conditions respectively;

Sc
= 1.70Fr 2.1
Di

Sc
= 2.27Fr 2.2
Di

where Sc is the critical submergence which is vertical distance measured from

the summit point of the intake to the free surface and Fr is the Froude number
(Vi ⁄√gDi ).

Reddy and Pickford (1972) had studied vortices at horizontal intakes in

conventional pump sumps. It was mentioned that wave action in shallow
reservoirs are usually responsible for the change in vorticity which triggers the
formation of air entraining vortices. It was also stated that air-entraining vortices
in a conventional inlet was function of submergence Sc, diameter of intake Di,
velocity of the flow at the intake Vi, density ρ, viscosity µ, gravity acceleration
g , wave length, λ and also depth of water in reservoir, h. Since the vortex
formation was considered as a free surface phenomenon and the wave length is
so small compared to total water depth in a conventional hydroelectric power

14
plant, both Reynolds number and wave parameter were removed from theoretical
analysis and the final relationship for Sc/Di was given as a function of Froude
number as

Sc/Di = Fr 2.3

if vortex prevention devices are used.

If devices are not used;

Sc/Di = 1+Fr 2.4

One of the most comprehensive study in the past about effect of viscous and
surface tension forces on the formation of vortices was conducted by Daggett
and Keulegan (1974). Experiments were made in two different scaled cylindrical
tanks with different fluids. These fluids were used to show the effect of viscous
and surface tension forces on the free surface vortices, if there is any. The results
of this study showed that free surface vortex flow was affected from both
viscosity and initial circulation imposed by set of vanes. Nevertheless, the effect
of surface tension forces was not observed on the formation of free surface
vortices for the ranges of tested. Finally, an empirical equation for the critical
submergence was presented as a function of Reynolds number and circulation
number.

Zeigler (1976) conducted a model study of Grand Coulee Third Powerplant to

observe the formation of air entraining vortices and examine the effect of anti-
vortex devices on the formation of vortices. Also, study was performed with and
without three different grid sized trashracks. It was stated that using of trashracks
contributes to prevent formation of vortices and decreases vortex intensity. It
was also seen that smaller grid size has more effect to decrease vortex severity
than other grid sizes. Moreover, different size of floating and submerged rafts
were used as anti-vortex devices to observe their performance on prevention of
vortex formation. They were placed near the center of vortex formed place. In
result, both rafts prevented vortex formation, but submerged raft was found more

15
successful than floating one. However, these rafts could not cease swirl
occurrence totally.

Anwar et al (1978) studied similarity of free vortex at horizontal intakes

experimentally. In this experimental study, horizontal intakes with or without
bellmouth entrance which were projected into flume or mounted flush with
boundary walls were used to investigate formation of vortices at these intakes.
Results of study showed that air entraining vortex formation was not affected by
viscosity and surface tension for the conditions of radial Reynolds number,
ReR=Q/(νSc), higher than 3x104 and Weber numbers, We= ρV2i Di ⁄σ,larger than
1x104. Moreover, observations in this study showed that process of a little
increase in Q or decrease in submergence, h, will result in larger air core. If this
process is continued, sudden expansion of the air core of vortex will be observed
and it will lead to ingestion large amount of air into intake pipe. In addition to
these air entraining vortices, weak vortices were also observed by injecting a dye
at the floor of the flume which have an enough strength to transport particles into
intakes. Also, it was mentioned that roughening of flume floor by metal mesh
can decrease the strength of weak vortices, but it did not show an effect on the
air entraining vortices apparently. The reason behind the decreasing strength of
weak vortices was explained such a way that metal meshes increase roughness
of the floor, so radial flow which provides a continuous energy for the existence
of the vortex formation is decreased. Moreover, it was concluded that using of
bellmouth entrance at projected intake did not improve the intake performance.
However, intakes which were flush mounted with boundary walls of flume
creates a chance to place intakes closing to water surface regardless of using
bellmouth entrance. In other words, flush mounting of intake to boundary wall
had shown improvement in performance of intakes considerably because of
reducing circulation.

Durgin and Hecker (1978) studied the scale effects on modelling of vortices.
Investigators generated a common method which can project model results to
prototype conditions by means of observing vortex severity. This common
16
method was applied to formation of vortices in the sump of Emergency Core
Cooling System for nuclear reactor. In this study, vorticity sources were divided
into three fundamental types; offset introduction, velocity gradients, obstruction
in the flow field. Last two type vorticity sources were associated with viscous
effects which means Reynolds number dependent. Also, the vortex types were
categorized into 6 divisions which were mentioned in the introduction part, ARL
classification. It was stated that type of vortices up to type 4 increases nearly
linear with Frt which was Froude number depending on maximum tangential
velocity. Moreover, circulation of flow was associated with the severity of the
free surface vortex. It was claimed that vortex activity on free surface could be
measured with different ways such as visual observation, flow rotation in the
inlet pipe and inlet discharge coefficient without disturbing the flow pattern.
With the examination of tangential velocity variation in a vortex zone, it was
seen that viscous forces have an effect on vortex characteristics. It means that
neglecting Reynolds number may resulted with noticeable scale effects. Besides
these, it was claimed that if Weber number, We, is much higher than 1, We>>1,
the scale effect can be negligible. On the other hand, if We is less than 1 which
means that surface tension parameters become important and it will introduce a
scale effect on results. It was also concluded that vortex severity was dependent
on geometry function, the Froude number and secondarily the Reynolds number.
It was also suggested that Reynolds number of model must be increased without
changing the Froude number to project observed model vortex severity into the
prototype. Also, trend of parameters regarding vortex severity was superimposed
and extrapolated to fit Reynolds number of prototype. The water temperatures
were changed to variate fluid viscosity, so Reynolds number can be increased
with this temperature changes. Also, different flow rates were used to generate
additional data points below and above the Froude scaling. Thus, a graph could
be made related with Froude and Reynolds number ratios to predict vortex
severity in prototypes.

17
Jain et al. (1978) claimed that on the contrary of past studies, Froude number
equality was not enough to provide dynamic similarity between model and
prototype for the vortex phenomena. Geometrically similar two circular vortex
tanks and different liquids were used to investigate effect of model ratio, viscous
and surface forces on the formation of vortices at vertical pipe intakes. It was
stated that Weber number has no effect on the formation of vortices within the
range of 1.2x102<We<3.4x104. Also, experiments showed that increasing the
kinematic viscosity was resulted in less critical submergence. It was explained
by reduction in strength of the circulation due to increasing in the viscosity.
Moreover, it was claimed that critical submergence strongly depends on
viscosity parameter (Nv=g0.5Di1.5/ν), circulation parameter (NГ=ГSc/Q) and
Froude number (Fr). Also, it was stated that circulation parameter was constant
when geometrical similarity is constructed. Thus, for Froude scaled models, the
only distortion was originated from difference in Reynolds numbers between
models and prototypes. Regarding this distortion, investigators introduced
viscous correction factor, K, which serves to predict prototype critical
submergence from model results by multiplication of model critical
submergence. A figure was composed to determine correction factor K by using
Froude number and Reynolds number of model. It was also concluded that limit
Reynolds number to neglect viscous effects on the vortex formation depends on
Froude number. Higher Froude number causes greater Reynolds number limit
for independency of viscous effects. In addition, It was suggested that Froude
number similarity should be used in vortex studies and formula was presented to
determine critical submergence in vertical intake pipes as given below;

𝑆𝑐
𝐾 = 5.6 NГ0.42 Fr0.5 2.5
𝐷

where K= f (Nv) and valid for 1.1≤Fr≤ 20.0 , 0.1875 ≤ NГ≤1.95 and
5.3x102≤Nν

Hecker (1981) studied on a technique to compensate scale effect on the

formation of air core vortices by model and prototype comparison. It was stated

18
that main reason for the scale effect was the impossibility of reducing all related
forces by the same reducing factor. In other words, viscous and surface tension
forces can not be reduced as much as inertial and gravitational forces, Froude
number. Moreover, it was stated that air core vortices in the vicinity of the intake
were more prone to scale effects than surface dimples. In addition to effect of
viscous and surface tension forces, it was claimed that minor topographic or
structural change due to model or wind induced currents may contribute the
differences on vortex formation between model and prototype. In this study,
some of past studies which used higher Froude-scaled flows were not seen as
acceptable, because there was a doubt about proper simulation of approach flow
circulation and details of the field observations for the studies. Thus, investigator
requested specific information about model - prototype vortex activity from 65
domestic and foreign organizations who concerned with vortices in their works.
However, it was stated that most of replies were not proper to use in this study
because of their insufficient information or contradictory terms. Summary of
these feedbacks implied that if Froude scaled model was observed as vortex free,
prototype observation was also seen as vortex free and if model had weak
vortices, corresponding prototype had also weak vortices. Moreover, it was
stated that there was not any observation where a negligible model vortex
corresponded to strong prototype vortex. In addition to scale effect, detrimental
effect of vortices were also mentioned in a table which was consisted of replies
from organizations. It was recommended that model tests should ensure designs
without vortex formations and also Reynolds and Weber numbers should be kept
above the critical values aforementioned in earlier studies to minimize scale
effect. It was concluded that Froude scaled models had some scale effects when
vortex intensity was predicted for the simulation of air core vortices. It was also
recommended that scale effect problem could be overcome, if model flow is
increased a little bit than Froude-scaled values. Besides that, Froude scaled
model which estimates only swirls and dimples without air core vortex for
prototypes had negligible scale effect.

19
Gulliver and Rindels (1983) gathered all available data together from past studies
including Gordon (1970) and Reddy and Pickford (1972) studies. In addition to
Gordon (1970) and Reddy and Pickford (1972) results, the zone which was
composed of vortex free results at horizontal intake is introduced. It can be seen
from Figure 2.1 that both Gordon and Reddy and Pickford’s equations
underestimate the critical submergences of the existing intakes.

Figure 2.1: Plotting of compiled data from past studies of existing intakes and
model studies (Gulliver and Rindels, 1983)

Padmanabhan and Hecker (1984) studied scale effects in pump sump models
with full sized, 1:2 and 1:4 reduced sized of geometric scales. In this study, scale
effect of free surface vortices, pipe swirl, inlet losses and air ingestions due air
20
entraining vortices had been investigated. Three different cases were tested
which were consisted of two pipes, one pipe and screen blockage operations.
Results were evaluated in figures to search the relation between average vortex
types (according to ARL) and Froude numbers. It was stated that these figures
did not show any relation to imply scale effects on modelling free surface
vortices except the case of one pipe operation which exhibits reverse trend from
expectations. Also, investigators claimed that scale effects due to viscous or
surface tension forces were not observed on modelling of free surface vortices
for the ranges of ReR>1.5 x 104, Re>7.7 x 104 and We> 600. To sum, it was
concluded that persistence of different vortex strengths and average vortex types
could be well estimated by small scale models.

Yıldırım and Kocabaş (1995) conducted experiments in a horizontal rectangular

flume with a vertically oriented intake to investigate the critical submergence of
air entraining vortices. They combined the results of the experiments with the
theoretical analysis based on potential flow approach considering the
combination of a point sink and uniform channel flow, which is known as
Rankine’s half body of revolution. The distance between the top of the intake
and free surface was assumed to be equal to the radius of an imaginary spherical
sink surface and is considered as the critical submergence. As a result of potential
flow solution a formula for the dimensionless critical submergence was
presented.

Yıldırım et al. (2000, 2007) experimentally and theoretically worked on the

effects of flow-boundary on the critical submergence of horizontal intake pipe
in a horizontal rectangular flume with a dead-end wall. From the results of the
study they concluded that when the clearance between the intake and dead-end
wall is equal to zero, an air core vortex is obtained in lower critical submergence
due to boundary effect of dead-end wall and air entraining vortices become the
intermittent type, not continuous.

21
To investigate the effects of the flow boundaries and blockage of the intake pipe
on the critical submergence, Yıldırım and Kocabaş (2002) repeated their study
of 2000 discussed above. In this study, they modified the critical spherical sink
surface and considered it as has a radius of Sc/√2 which had been taken as Sc in
the previous work. From comparison of theoretical and experimental results it
was concluded that the new approach gave better prediction of the critical
submergence if the distance between the intake center and impervious dead-end
wall is less than or equal to the intake diameter.

Gürbüzdal (2009) studied scale effects on the formation of air-entraining vortices

at horizontal intakes. Study was conducted by using four different pipe diameters
placed in a large reservoir. Effect of side wall clearances on the critical
submergence was found to be negligible if b/Di>6. Moreover, it was concluded
that if the scale ratio, Lr gets smaller, scale effect on the (Sc/Di)r increases
enormously. Likewise, increasing in the Froude number leads to increase in
(Sc/Di)r ratio slightly. An empirical formula was proposed to estimate the critical
submergence as a function of other dimensionless parameters as given below;

𝑆𝑐 𝑏
=Fr0.865 (𝐷 )-0.565 Re0.0424 2.6
𝐷𝑖 𝑖

with R2= 0.95 valid for the following ranges ;

0.51≤Fr≤4.03, 1.597≤b/Di≤ 5.147 and 2.96x104≤Re≤ 2.89x 105

Taştan and Yıldırım (2010) investigated the effects of dimensionless parameters

and boundary friction on air-entraining vortices and the critical submergence of
a vertically directed intake for the case of no-circulation imposed cross-flow and
still water. They found that for cross-flow, there are certain limiting values of Fr,
Re, We and at larger values of these parameters Sc is independent of them. These
values decrease with increase in approach flow. It was also found to be difficult
to obtain these limiting values for still water since the approach flow is very
slow.

22
Baykara (2013) studied formation of vortices under symmetrical approach flow
conditions with varying approach channel side wall clearances to derive an
empirical equation for critical submergence as a function of relevant parameters.
In this study, six different pipe diameters were used which are 30, 25, 19.4 14.4,
10, 5 cm and many different symmetrical combinations of side wall clearances
interval were applied to each pipe diameter with varying discharges. Also, fixed
anti-vortex plates of varying dimensions were tested. Based on the experimental
results, it was stated that the obtained Sc/Di data could be analyzed into 3 groups
which are maximum, minimum and intermediate values of Sc/Di. For
intermediate values of Sc/Di, it was mentioned for a given pipe diameter if the
Froude number and 2b/Di are above the values stated on the curve of Figure 2.2,
Sc/Di does not vary for larger values of 2b/Di than those given on the curve.

Figure 2.2: Limit values of 2b/Di and Fr for intake diameter Di above which
Sc/Di is independent of 2b/Di

Empirical equations were obtained and then simplified by omitting the variables
of Re, We and dimensionless wall clearance ratio, 2b/Di to see the effect of them
on the variation of Sc/Di. It was stated that removing process of variables did not
affect Sc/Di significantly. Considering the intakes of larger diameters as

23
prototype and these of smaller ones as mode, length ratios of the models were
determined based on Froude similarity law and the corresponding Sc/Di values
of the models and prototypes were compared each other. The neglect of Re and
We between model and prototype resulted in scale effect on the values of Sc/Di.
It was observed that if the length ratio, Lr, is gets smaller, the scale effect
becomes more significant. Result of this study, empirical formulas were
generated and given below;

For intermediate values of Sc/Di which is valid for the range of

3.33≤2b/Di≤12.00,

Sc 2b −0.261
= Fr 0.336 Re−0.229 We0.401 ( D ) 2.7
Di i

with R2=0.978.

The above equation takes the following simplified form after removing the terms
of Re, We and 2b/Di from the equation ;

Sc
= Fr 0.639 2.8
Di

with R2=0.964

For the case where Sc/Di is independent of 2b/Di as defined in Figure 2.2 ,

Sc
= Fr 0.324 Re−0.176 We0.282 2.9
Di

with R2=0.997.

If Re and We terms are removed from equation 2.9 to get more simple form of
Sc/Di;

Sc
= 1.278 Fr 0.558 2.10
Di

is obtained with R2=0.984.

24
Taştan and Yıldırım (2014) studied effects of Froude, Reynolds and Weber
numbers on an air-entraining vortices. This study was conducted according to
semi-theoretical approach with considering principle of flow continuity and
published experimental data. It was concluded that if the intakes have identical
ratio of the intake velocity to the velocity at the critical spherical sink surface,
proportion of the critical submergence to intake diameter is also identical
irrespective of the flow and geometrical conditions where intakes are placed. If
this identical ratio of the critical submergence to diameter of intake is provided,
there is no need to make dynamic similarity between models and prototypes and
providing of kinematic similarity will be sufficient to make modelling. Also, it
was stated that if this ratio kept same, overall scale effects due to Froude,
Reynolds and Weber numbers on the ratio of the critical submergence to the
diameter of the pipe become identical.

Zaloğlu (2014) investigated the formation of vortices for symmetrical and

asymmetrical approach flow conditions at horizontal intakes by conducting a
series of experiments. A wide range of discharges were tested at varied approach
channel side wall clearances for three different pipe diameters. It was found that
the dimensionless critical submergence ratio increases with the increase in the
dimensionless flow parameters, Froude, Reynolds and Weber numbers.
Moreover, regression analysis was applied to the collected data group from
experiments and the results of asymmetrical and symmetrical approach flow
conditions were compared with past study of Gordon (1970) , Reddy and
Pickford (1972) and also Baykara (2013). The comparison showed that the
present study underestimated the critical submergences according to
aforementioned past studies. These underestimations were explained with scale
effect of the model due to neglecting Reynolds and Weber numbers equality in
Froude-scaled modelling. However, comparison of asymmetrical and
symmetrical results of present study showed that critical submergences of
asymmetrical side walls were slightly higher than symmetrical walls’ which was

25
an expected result. The experimental data of Zaloğlu (2014) will be combined
with those of this study and presented as a whole in the related sections.

26
 CHAPTER 3

MODELLING OF AIR ENTRAINING VORTICES

3.1. Introduction

In hydraulics, many different events can be so complex to study theoretically

where computational and theoretical studies can not provide reliable results
because of unseen reasons behind the phenomenon. Thus, solution process of
that phenomenon should be changed by conducting physically similar studies.
Modelling makes the complex studies easier to see the reasons behind that
phenomenon and is a way of developing practical solutions for problems by
conducting series of tests. Moreover, modelling is an essential tool before
designing and constructing the hydraulic structures to prevent costly mistakes.

Vortex formation at intakes is one of these kinds of complex flow phenomena

whose formation depends on condition of the approaching flow to the intake,
geometrical properties of the system, intake velocity of the flow and fluid
properties which are used in the experiment. This means that theoretical study of
vortices can not be simple and can not be enough to supply general solution by
itself. Thus, modelling of this complex phenomena is required to investigate in
laboratory by conducting series of experiments to make a guideline in designing
intakes and operating reservoirs.

27
3.2. Application of Dimensional Analysis to the Related Parameters

Before conducting a study of vortex formation, general parameters related with

this phenomenon should be collected, investigated and sorted properly. These
parameters are divided into three main groups according to their properties;

- Flow Properties: Average velocity of flow in the intake pipe (Vi), average
circulation exposed to flow (Г) and gravity acceleration (g).
- Fluid Properties: Fluid density (ρ), dynamic viscosity of the fluid (μ) and
surface tension of the fluid (σ).
- Geometric Properties of the Intake and Reservoir: Intake pipe diameter
(Di), right and left approach channel side wall distances (with respect to
flow direction) of the intake structure to the intake center axis b1 and b2
respectively and the vertical distance between the bottom point of the
intake and the base of the reservoir (c).

Consider the common type of intake as shown in figure 3.1, critical

submergence, Sc, which is the maximum vertical distance between top of the
intake and free surface level. Thus, Sc can be defined as a function of the
independent variables as given below;

Sc = f1 (ρ, μ, σ, g, Vi, Γ, Di, c, b1, b2) 3.1

28
 Sc

b1 b2
Vi
c
Di

Figure 3.1: A sketch of a horizontal intake structure with related parameters

Applying Buckingham’s π theorem to the parameters given in Equation (3.1) the

following dimensionless terms are obtained ;

Sc b b2 c
=f2 (D1 , , , Re, Fr, We, Ko ) 3.2
Di i Di Di

where

b1
= Aspect ratio of right side wall clearance to intake diameter
Di

b2
= Aspect ratio of left side wall clearance to intake diameter
Di

c
= Aspect ratio of bottom clearance to intake diameter
Di

Vi Di ρ
Re = Intake Reynolds number =
μ

Vi
Fr = Intake Froude number =
√gDi

29
 ρV2i Di
We = Intake Weber number =
σ

Γ
Ko = Intake Kolf number =
Vi Di

In this study, the vertical distance between the bottom of the reservoir and intake
c
pipe, called as bottom clearance c, is zero. Thus, parameter can be omitted
Di

from Equation 3.2. Equation (3.2) can be expressed in the form of Equation (3.3)
which is valid for both symmetrical and asymmetrical approach flow conditions.

Sc (𝑏1 +𝑏2 ) 𝑏
= f2 ( . (𝑏1 ), Re, Fr, We,Ko ) 3.3
Di Di 2

If the approach flow is symmetrical, b1=b2=b and therefore the term of

(b1+b2)/Di.(b1/b2) becomes 2b/Di. Otherwise, (b1+b2)/Di.(b1/b2) becomes the
dimensionless term describing the asymmetry of the approach flow.

Sc 2𝑏
= f2 ( D , Re, Fr, We,Ko ) 3.4
Di i

for symmetrical approach flow and,

Sc (𝑏1 +𝑏2 ) 𝑏1
= f2 ( , 𝑏 ,Re, Fr, We, Ko ) 3.5
Di Di 2

for asymmetrical approach flow conditions. In the following analysis b1 and b2

will be considered as the small and large wall clearances, respectively, so that
b1/b2 becomes less than unity all the time.

If modelling of the prototype is desired, the complete similarity between the

model and protoype should be satisfied. The complete similarity of model and
prototype requires that ratio of all the similar parameters should be equal to unity.
This is, of course, is not possible, because identicality of all dimensionless
parameters requires the length ratio of the model and protoype equal to 1, Lr=1,
which is meaningless and not practicle. Thus, a term or some terms which have

30
less importance for vortex phenomena should be sorted out from the general
equation and one of them should be selected as the main parameter to determine
the proper way of modelling. For this study, Froude similitude law is applied,
because vortex is a free surface phenomena and affected by gravity. Thus,
Reynolds and Weber number equalities are neglected in the dynamic similarity.

3.3. Effect of Froude Number

Most of the past studies about formation of vortex states that most relevant and
important dimensionless parameter is Froude number. In these studies like
Gordon (1970), the critical submergence was expressed as a function of only one
dimensionless parameter which is Froude number. Thus, Froude similitude law
was used to model of air entraining vortices , but this will lead to incomplete
similarity of model and prototype which causes ‘scale effect’ and it will be
mentioned and analyzed in the related section in this study. Nevertheless, some
of the studies which were performed in the past introduced threshold values for
Reynolds and Weber numbers to neglect the scale effect of viscous and surface
tension forces on the model which are mentioned in the next titles.

3.4. Effect of Reynolds Number

Reynolds number is a very important dimensionless parameter in hydraulics,

especially in a pipe flow, which reflects the viscous effects of flow. Some of the
studies conducted in the past show that effect of Reynolds number can be
negligible on the formation of air entraining vortices after a certain limit value
such as according to Anwar (1977) and Jain et al. (1978) ReR>3x104,
Re>2.5x103 respectively.

3.5. Effect of Weber Number

Weber number is a dimensionless parameter which represents the surface tension

forces of the flow. In dynamic similarity of models, Weber number equality is
also needed to prevent possible scale effects on the model. However, as in the

31
Reynolds number, Weber number equality can not be satisfied in Froude
similitude laws for small scaled models. This problem was studied in many
resarches to eliminate scale effect due to neglecting the Weber number. In
literature, limiting values were presented for Weber numbers and it was showed
that effects of surface tension forces can be negligible beyond these limit values.
Anwar (1978) stated that vortex formation is independent from surface tension
forces for large Weber numbers. Jain (1978), Padmanabhan and Hecker (1984)
gave limit Weber numbers as 1.2x102, 600 and 3200 respectively.

3.6. Effect of Kolf Number

Kolf number is a dimensionless parameter which shows effects of circulation on

the flow. Approaching flow conditions, geometry of intake and intake zone and
discharge of flow are main parameters compose and define circulation. All these
parameters are included in Equations 3.4 and 3.5 and no forced circulation is
introduced in present study, so circulation parameter Г can be omitted from these
equations. Thus, Kolf number can also be removed from Equations 3.4 and 3.5.
Thus, the final equations will be;

For symmetrical approach flow;

Sc 2𝑏
= f2 ( D , Re, Fr, We) 3.6
Di i

For asymmetrical approach flow;

Sc (𝑏1 +𝑏2 ) 𝑏1
= f2 ( . 𝑏 ,Re, Fr, We) 3.7
Di Di 2

32
 CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY

4.1. Experimental Setup

The experimental setup was constructed in METU Hydromechanics Laboratory

to investigate vortex formation in reservoirs (Figures 4.1-4.5). Water was
provided from a sump which was placed under the laboratory. Pumps transport
water from sump to upper reservoir. After having the upper reservoir filled with
water, the excess water is spilled out, it is started to be drained by a pipe system
to prevent overtopping of the reservoir and to fix the water level constant. The
experimental setup is composed of three main parts which are reservoir,
horizontal intake pipe and rectangular open channel. The reservoir is made from
concrete and has plexiglass walls which were placed in front of the reservoir
above the diaphragm slab and to provide visual observation of vortices. These
plexiglass walls are strengthened with steel bars and welded together with
concrete reservoir body. In addition to that, the horizontal intake pipe was
mounted flush with the frontal plexiglass wall. The complete reservoir has 3.10
m length and 2.20 m width and depth. Two steel pipes were connected to the
reservoir with their valves, one of which to provide water and the other one to
drain the reservoir. There are active and dead volumes in the reservoir which are
divided by a diaphragm slab. The energy of the incoming flow is dissipated
within the dead volume underneath the diaphragm slab. The plexiglass floor was
set on the diaphragm slab to fit zero bottom clearance for different pipe
diameters. Above the plexiglass floor, two adjustable plexiglass side walls were
33
placed to observe the effect of side wall clearances on the formation of vortices.
At the beginning of the experiment, the dead volume of the reservoir is filled
with water firstly. As the reservoir is filled, water level increases and reaches
active part of the reservoir. The dead volume prevents unsteadiness of the
incoming flow by calming water before it reaches active storage of the reservoir.
Screens were also placed upstream of the active volume to provide steady and
uniform flow without introducing any circulation into active part of the reservoir.
Water is discharged from concrete reservoir into a small pool via plexiglass
horizontal intake pipe. This pool is connected to a rectangular open channel
having a sharp crested weir which has 17 cm height and 1 meter width. This weir
is calibrated with an acoustic flowmeter before conducting experiments for each
pipes. Four different plexiglass pipe diameters are used in this study as horizontal
intake pipe which are Di =30, 25, 10 and 5 cm. In this study, using of pump is
required for small pipe diameters of pipes D=10 and 5 cm to provide sufficient
discharge for the formation of vortices in the reservoir. On the other hand, using
of pump was not necessary for Di =30 cm and Di =25 cm because of their larger
discharge capacity.

Figure 4.1: Plan view of the experimental setup without pump (Zaloğlu, 2014)

34
 Figure 4.2: Side view of the experimental setup (Zaloğlu, 2014)

Figure 4.3: General view of the experimental setup with Di=5 cm pipe and
pump

35
 Figure 4.4: General view of the experimental setup without pump

Figure 4.5: Experiment setup with intake pipe of Di =30 cm (without pump)

To investigate performance of floating rafts on the prevention of the vortex

formation, varied dimensions of wooden floating rafts were tested and shown in
Figure 4.6. In experiments, firstly vortex is tried to be prevented with smaller
rafts i.e 10-10, 15-15 or 30-30 cm which have proportional dimensions with
36
intake diameter. If tested floating raft can not prevent vortex formation, larger
rafts are used considering the location of vortex formation.

Figure 4.6: Some of the wooden floating rafts used in the tests
(dimensions in cm)

4.2. Experimental Methodology

Firstly, plexiglass side walls are adjusted to the desired interval regarding the
symmetrical or asymmetrical approach flow conditions before starting each
experiment. These side walls are screwed to floor and fastened by clamps to the
front plexiglass wall to ensure immobilization of the wall during the
experiments. After that, the inflow pipe valve is opened to fill the concrete
reservoir with water. Attention is given to avoid squeezing of air bubbles
between the diaphragm slab and plexiglass floor, because these bubbles can be
carried into the intake pipe during the experiment which causes strong cavitation
and also affect the flow measurement by acoustic flow-meter. After maximum
water level is obtained in the reservoir, the valve of the horizontal pipe is opened
slowly to avoid fluctuations of water level in the reservoir. For pump used cases,
the pump was started and after that the valve was opened slowly until providing
the desired maximum discharge. After that, the drainage pipe which is a small
pipe placed within the dead volume of the reservoir is opened to keep the water
level constant at its maximum value. Thus, the experiment was ready to start.
Water level is decreased from its maximum level very slowly by opening small

37
drainage pipe to prevent imposing of disturbed flow pattern and ensure steady
flow with no fluctuations in the water level. This process is continued until
ingestion of air bubble into the intake. During drawdown process, the intake
valve is opened little by little to keep the flow rate constant. Researcher can
estimate at which water level air entraining vortices are formed, because all
formation steps of vortex defined by Alden Research Laboratory can be observed
easily. However, full air core or bubble entraining vortices are sometimes
observed unexpectedly which are called as deceptive vortices. It was supposed
that aforementioned disturbed flow pattern and unsteady flow in the reservoir
may cause these misleading formations. To ensure whether these vortices are
deceptive or not, a water level is always fixed at a constant level at the first sight
of air entrainment and waited nearly 10-15 minutes to see whether vortex
formation takes place or not. After ensuring the formation of vortex, the water
level and discharge values are read from the piezometers and flowmeter,
respectively. At the same time, the water level of the rectangular channel was
measured with a needle gauge and flow rate was calculated from Rehbock
Formula to ensure the measured discharges from the acoustic flow meter. This
process is applied for all desired discharges for each wall clearance. One set of
experiment can be defined as testing of one wall clearance with varied discharge
values. Each set is usually tested with 5 or 6 different discharges and it takes
nearly 5 or 6 hours which depends on the number of tested discharge. Also, for
the maximum and minimum discharges tested, varied dimensions of floating
rafts are used to investigate whether vortex formation is prevented or not.
Detailed information prepared for the performance of floating rafts are given in
Chapter 5.

4.3. Vortex Observations

During observations, it was recognized that many of the observed vortices are
occurred in a sequence defined by Alden Research Laboratory. When water level
is approach to the critical submergence, eddies are observed at the free surface.
After a little decrease in the water level, eddies turned into dimples and vortex
38
tail is finally occurred with the elongation of dimples. In this study, type 5 and
type 6 vortices are taken into consideration, so dye is not used to recognize type
3 vortex which is called as dye core according to ARL classification. Thus, after
seeing dimples at the free surface, type 4 vortices which pull floating trash into
the intake are observed. This vortex type actually can be seen as warning of
incoming air entraining vortices. It was also observed that after the pulling of
floating trash step, type 6, full air core vortex, may occur without observing type
5 vortex which pulls air bubbles into the intake. This situation is usually
encountered at relatively low water levels. In Figures 4.7 - 4.9, vortices of type
5 and type 6 are shown from different points of view.

Figure 4.7: Top view of a type-5 vortex which is pulling air bubble into the
intake.

39
Figure 4.8: Front view of a type-5 vortex which is formed near the left side
wall.

Figure 4.9: A type-6 vortex with a continuous full air core from near the left
side wall towards intake.

40
 CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

5.1. Introduction

This part is composed of two main subsections which are symmetrical and
asymmetrical approach flow conditions respectively. For the symmetrical
approach flow part, first the ranges of the important parameters used in the
experiments were presented and then, as stated in Equation 3.6, the variation of
Sc/Di data obtained in this study with the relevant hydraulic parameters; Fr, Re,
We as a function of 2b/Di were introduced graphically. To extend the number of
experimental data for Sc/Di obtained by Zaloğlu (2014) using three different pipe
diameters in the same experimental setup, the similar graphs of these Sc/Di values
were also presented. Totally the data of six different intake diameters were
analyzed and effect of side wall clearances on the value of Sc/Di were discussed.
Later on, the combined data of the present study and Zaloğlu’s (2014) were
compared with those of Baykara’s (2013) data. Applying regression analysis to
the whole data set mentioned above, empirical equations were derived for Sc/Di
as a function of Fr, Re, We and 2b/Di. A study related to scale effect on the Sc/Di
value was performed. Finally, the results obtained from the use of anti-vortex
devices were presented in tabular form. Similar presentations and analysis were
done in the second subsection for asymmetrical flow conditions using the
experimental data of the present study and those of Zaloğlu’s (2014). In this part,
the parameter [(b1+b2)/Di].(b1/b2) presented in Equation 3.7 was designated by
the symbol of ψ and were used in the analysis.
41
5.2. Symmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

The ranges of the important hydraulic and geometric parameters used and
calculated in the experiments of the symmetrical approach flow conditions are
given in Table 5.1 based on Equation 3.6. The variation of Sc/Di with relevant
parameters are discussed in the following sections.

Table 5.1: The ranges of the important parameters used and calculated in the
experiment of the symmetrical approach flow conditions

Interval of
Di Number
Qi
(cm) Sc/Di Fr Re We 2b/Di of Obs.
(lt/s)

64.30 1.80 0.53 273053 3408 4.00

30 22
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
29.17 0.40 0.24 123883 701 2.00
54.10 0.97 2.70 274571 4168 5.60
25 25
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
29.92 0.47 0.39 151848 1275 2.40
46.75 2.03 6.01 595572 48636 8.00
10 17
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
17.84 6.61 2.29 227213 7079 4.00
14.33 4.36 10.43 365146 36564 20.00
5 16
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5.20 1.04 3.78 132522 4816 8.00

5.2.1. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters under

Symmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

Figures 5.1- 5.12 show the variation of Sc/Di with Fr, Re and We as a function
of 2b/Di for the tested pipe diameters of Di= 30 cm, 25 cm, 10 cm and 5 cm.
From the analysis of these figures the following conclusions can be made:

42
 2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
Sc/Di

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm)
0.20
2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm)
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Fr

Figure 5.1: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
Sc/Di

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm)
0.20
2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm)
0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.2: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

43
 2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
Sc/Di

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm)
0.20
2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm) 2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm)
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
We

Figure 5.3: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

1.2

0.8
Sc/Di

0.6

0.4

0.2
2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fr

Figure 5.4: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

44
 1.2

0.8
Sc/Di

0.6

0.4

0.2 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.5: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

1.2

0.8
Sc/Di

0.6

0.4

0.2 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
We

Figure 5.6: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

45
 7

4
Sc/Di

1 2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm,Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm)

2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fr

Figure 5.7: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr symmetrical approach flow conditions,

Di=10 cm

4
Sc/Di

1 2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm,Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm)

2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm)
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000
Re

Figure 5.8: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=10 cm

46
 7

4
Sc/Di

1
2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm,Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm)

0 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm)

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
We

Figure 5.9: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=10 cm

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
Sc/Di

2.00

1.50

1.00
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)
0.50
2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Fr

Figure 5.10: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

47
 4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
Sc/Di

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)

2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Re

Figure 5.11: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
Sc/Di

2.00

1.50

1.00
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)
0.50
2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
We

Figure 5.12: Variation of Sc/Di with We for symmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

48
From the general trends of the data given in the figures it is not possible to say
that there is a good correlation between Sc/Di and 2b/Di for a given Fr, Re and
We. The curves of Sc/Di versus Fr, Re and We for different values of 2b/Di
intersect each other at several points. However, it can clearly be stated that Sc/Di
increases with increasing Fr, Re and We for any 2b/Di tested. Within the ranges
of tested hydraulic and geometric parameters Sc/Di varies with not only Fr but
also with Re and We.

5.2.2. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for the data
of Zaloğlu (2014) and Present Study under Symmetrical Approach
Flow Conditions

The relations between Sc/Di and the related dimensionless parameters Fr, Re
and We for the data of present study and Zaloğlu (2014) are presented in
Figures 5.13-5.21.

1.5
2b/Di=1.60, (b=20 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)

1
Sc/Di

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fr

Figure 5.13: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm

49
 1.5 2b/Di=1.60 (b=20 cm, Di=25 cm),Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)

1
Sc/Di

0.5

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.14: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm

1.5 2b/Di=1.60 (b=20 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm), Zaloğlu 2b/Di=2.40 (b=30 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=50 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=5.60 (b=70 cm, Di=25 cm)
2b/Di=4.80 (b=60 cm, Di=25 cm) 2b/Di=3.20 (b=40 cm, Di=25 cm)

1
Sc/Di

0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
We

Figure 5.15: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of present study and
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm

50
 3.5
2b/Di= 2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di= 3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
3
2b/Di= 4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2.5

2
Sc/Di

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Fr

Figure 5.16: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

3.5
2b/Di= 2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

3 2b/Di= 3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2b/Di= 4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2.5

2
Sc/Di

1.5

0.5

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Re

Figure 5.17: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

51
 3.5 2b/Di= 2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm),
Zaloğlu
3 2b/Di= 3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm),
Zaloğlu
2b/Di= 4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm),
2.5 Zaloğlu

2
Sc/Di

1.5

0.5

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
We

Figure 5.18: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

1.8
2b/Di= 2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
1.6 2b/Di= 4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di= 5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Fr

Figure 5.19: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

52
 1.8
2b/Di= 2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
1.6 2b/Di= 4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

1.4 2b/Di= 5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.20: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

1.8 2b/Di= 2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

1.6 2b/Di= 4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2b/Di= 5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
We

Figure 5.21: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

53
Di=25 cm diameter is the only pipe which was tested in both studies of present
and Zaloğlu (2014). Thus, the comparison of two studies is possible for only
Di=25 cm. For the intermediate value of Sc/Di, it is seen that the present study
results highly coincide with Zaloğlu’s (2014) results. There are two common
2b/Di values for both studies. For 2b/Di=2.40, Sc/Di values overlap after Fr≥
0.59 and have the same Sc/Di values. For 2b/Di=3.20, Sc/Di values are very close
to each other about Fr≈0.55.

For the rest of the figures the similar conclusions can be made, as done in the
previous section for the data of present study. Sc/Di values have a tendency to
increase with increasing Fr, Re and We for a given 2b/Di. There is not any case
that Sc/Di becomes independent of Re and We, within the ranges of these
parameters tested.

5.2.3. Effect of Wall Clearances on the Critical Submergence

To investigate the effect of wall clearances on the values of Sc/Di as a function

of a given Froude number, from the previously introduced figures of Sc/Di the
related data needed were extracted and shown in Figures 5.22- 5.29. All these
figures imply that, as stated earlier, for a given 2b/Di, Sc/Di increases with
increasing Froude number. However, a clear assessment can not be made about
how Sc/Di varies with 2b/Di for a given Fr; in some cases (i.e Di=30 cm) Sc/Di
first rapidly decreases with increasing 2b/Di and then continuous decreasing
gradually. In some other intakes Sc/Di first increases with increasing 2b/Di and
then decreases randomly. Finally, from the related figures it can not be stated
that there is a limit value of 2b/Di beyond which Sc/Di is independent of wall
clearance.

54
 1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000
Sc/Di

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200
Fr=0.25 Fr=0.3 Fr=0.4 Fr=0.45
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500
2b/Di

Figure 5.22: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=30 cm

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500
Sc/Di

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100
Fr=0.4 Fr=0.5 Fr=0.6
0.000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
2b/Di

Figure 5.23: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=25 cm

55
 1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Sc/Di

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Fr=0.3 Fr=0.4 Fr=0.45 Fr=0.5 Fr=0.6
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
2b/Di

Figure 5.24: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25 cm

Fr=0.4 Fr=0.5 Fr=0.6

1.000
Fr=0.3 Zaloğlu Fr=0.4 Zaloğlu Fr=0.45 Zaloğlu
0.900 Fr=0.5 Zaloğlu Fr=0.6 Zaloğlu

0.800

0.700

0.600
Sc/Di

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
2b/Di

Figure 5.25: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study and Zaloğlu (2014), Di = 25 cm

56
 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Fr=0.5 Fr=0.6 Fr=0.7 Fr=0.8

Fr=0.9 Fr=1 Fr=0.45 Fr=1.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
2b/Di

Figure 5.26: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=19.4 cm

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00
Sc/Di

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20
Fr=0.85 Fr=0.9 Fr=1.00 Fr=0.8 Fr=1.1 Fr=1.2
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
2b/Di

Figure 5.27: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
Zaloğlu (2014), Di=14.4 cm

57
 7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00
Sc/Di

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fr=5.6 Fr=4.4 Fr=3.7 Fr=3 Fr=5 Fr=2.3

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
2b/Di

Figure 5.28: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=10 cm

4.5

3.5

2.5
Sc/Di

1.5

0.5
Fr=6 Fr=7 Fr=8 Fr=9.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
2b/Di

Figure 5.29: Variation of Sc/Di with 2b/Di as a function of Fr for the data of
present study, Di=5 cm

58
5.2.4. Comparison of Present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) Studies with
Baykara’s (2013)

As stated in the ‘literature review’ section Baykara (2013) conducted the similar
experiments in the same experimental setup with a pump to provide flows of
high Froude numbers for only symmetrical approach flow conditions. To
investigate the variation of Sc/Di at lower Froude numbers and therefore to get
some additional data to those of Baykara’s (2013) to enhance the total number
of Sc/Di data to make more reliable analysis, Zaloğlu’s (2014) and present studies
were conducted. Therefore, in this section all of the available data were
combined and presented in Figures 5.30-5.47. From all these figures it can be
pointed out that the consistency between the data of Sc/Di for the similar wall
clearances are quite good although the experiments had been conducted by
different researchers at different times. Baykara (2013) divided Sc/Di values
given in these figures into three groups. In the first group Sc/Di values are
maximum and they belong to the smallest 2b/Di values. In the second group Sc/Di
values are minimum and they are obtained again from small wall clearances. The
rest of the data are classified as in the third group and their 2b/Di values are much
larger than those of the other groups. By further analyzing the data of this third
group, which are also called as ‘intermediate S c/Di values’, Baykara (2013)
determine the Froude numbers and 2b/Di values beyond which Sc/Di is
independent of wall clearance for a given intake diameter. Those limit values of
Fr and 2b/Di were given in Table 5.2 with related Re and We limit values and a
function of intake diameter tested. When 2b/Di and Fr values tested in the present
and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies given in Figure 5.30- 5.47 are compared with those
given in Table 5.2 it is seen that, the limit values introduced by Baykara (2013)
are also valid for the data of present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies.

59
 3.00
2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=3.33, (b=50 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2.00 2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.67,(b=40 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=1.33 (b=20 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
Sc/Di

2b/Di=4.67 (b=70 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara

1.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Fr

Figure 5.30: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=30 cm

3.00
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=1.33 (b=20 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2.00 2b/Di=4.67 (b=70 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.67,(b=40 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
Sc/Di

2b/Di=3.33, (b=50 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara

2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara

1.00

0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.31: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=30 cm

60
3.00
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=2.67 (b=40 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=3.33 (b=50 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm,Di=30 cm)
2b/Di=1.33 (b=20 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.00 (b=30 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2.00 2b/Di=2.67,(b=40 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=3.33, (b=50 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.00 (b=60 cm, Di=30 cm), Baykara
Sc/Di

1.00

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
We

Figure 5.32: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=30 cm

61
62
Figure 5.33: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with Baykara’s (2013) for the variation
of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=25 cm
63
Figure 5.34: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with Baykara’s (2013) for the variation
of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=25cm
 25 cm

64
Figure 5.35: Comparison of the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014) studies with Baykara’s (2013) for the variation
of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di =25 cm
 4
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.15 (b=50 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
3 2b/Di=6.19 (b=60 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=7.22 (b=70 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Fr

Figure 5.36: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=19.4 cm

4
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.15 (b=50 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
3
2b/Di=6.19 (b=60 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=7.22 (b=70 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2 2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Re

Figure 5.37: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=19.4 cm

65
 4
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.15 (b=50 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
3
2b/Di=6.19 (b=60 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=7.22 (b=70 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.06 (b=20 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=3.09 (b=30 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2 2b/Di=4.12 (b=40 cm, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0
0 2000 4000 6000 We 8000 10000 12000 14000

Figure 5.38: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=19.4 cm

6
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.94 (b=50 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=8.33 (b=60 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=9.72 (b=70 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
4
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Fr

Figure 5.39: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=14.4 cm

66
 6
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.94 (b=50 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=8.33 (b=60 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
4 2b/Di=9.72 (b=70 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Re

Figure 5.40: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=14.4 cm

6
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.94 (b=50 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=8.33 (b=60 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
4 2b/Di=9.72 (b=70 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=2.78 (b=20 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
Sc/Di

2b/Di=4.17 (b=30 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

2b/Di=5.56 (b=40 cm, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
We

Figure 5.41: Comparison of Zaloğlu’s (2014) study with Baykara’s (2013) for
the variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=14.4 cm

67
 8

6
Sc/Di

2
2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm)
2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, D=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=10.00 (b=50 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=60 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
0
0 1 2 3 Fr 4 5 6 7

Figure 5.42: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=10 cm

6
Sc/Di

2
2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm)
2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, D=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=10.00 (b=50 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=60 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000
Re

Figure 5.43: Comparison of present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=10 cm

68
 8

6
Sc/Di

2
2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm, Di=10 cm)
2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, Di=10 cm) 2b/Di=8.00 (b=40 cm, D=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=6.00 (b=30 cm Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=4.00 (b=20 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
2b/Di=10.00 (b=50 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=60 cm, Di=10 cm), Baykara
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
We

Figure 5.44: Comparison of present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=10 cm

5.00

4.00

3.00
Sc/Di

2.00

1.00
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0.00 2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Fr

Figure 5.45: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Froude number, Di=5 cm

69
 5.00

4.00

3.00
Sc/Di

2.00

1.00
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0.00 2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Re

Figure 5.46: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Reynolds number, Di=5 cm

5.00

4.00

3.00
Sc/Di

2.00

1.00
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm ,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm,Di=5 cm) 2b/Di=20.00 (b=50 cm,Di=5 cm)
2b/Di=8.00 (b=20 cm,Di=5 cm), Baykara 2b/Di=12.00 (b=30 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0.00 2b/Di=16.00 (b=40 cm, Di=5 cm), Baykara
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
We

Figure 5.47: Comparison of the present study with Baykara’s (2013) for the
variation of Sc/Di with Weber number, Di=5 cm

70
 Table 5.2 Limit values of 2b/Di, Fr, Re and We above which Sc/Di is
independent of 2b/Di (Baykara, 2013)

5.2.5. Empirical Formula Derivation for Dimensionless Critical

Submergence

[Link]. The General Case

From dimensional analysis a dimensionless relationship for Sc/Di had been

derived as a function of other relevant dimensionless parameters for symmetrical
approach flow conditions and expressed in Equation 3.6. Regarding that
equation and using the measured and calculated experimental data of 2b/Di of
which the limit values are given Table 5.3 in a multiple variable regression
analysis, for Sc/Di Equation 5.1 was obtained with R2=0.966.

(Sc/Di) = Fr0.193 Re-0.331 We0.544 (2b/Di)-0.241 5.1

Since small 2b/Di values resulted in variable Sc/Di, as stated earlier, these values
are not applied in practical problems. In practice 2b/Di values are selected in
such a way that the side wall clearances of the water intake structure should not
have significant effect on Sc/Di. Figure 5.48 shows that calculated Sc/Di values
from Equation 5.1 remain within ±25% error lines.
71
 Table 5.3 Limit values of 2b/Di of which experimental data were used in the
derivation of Equation 5.1

Di (cm) 5.0 10.0 14.4 19.4 25.0 30.0

2b/Di ≥
16.00 8.00 6.94 5.16 4.00 3.33

≤ Fr ≤
3.78-10.68 2.29-6.64 1.42-3.23 0.59-1.53 0.39-0.81 0.24-0.51

≤ Re ≤
132522-372438 227213-654745 241647-550638 159045-408721 151848-317168 123883-260165

≤ We ≤
4816-384383 7079-59521 5605-29102 1802-11902 1275-5561 701-3318

4
(Sc/Di)measured

Perfect
2 Agreement
%-25 Error

%25 Error
1
Baykara

Haspolat

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.48: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.1 for symmetrical

approach flow conditions

72
[Link]. Simplified Empirical Equations for Sc/Di

To get much more simplified forms of the empirical equation of Sc/Di, the
dimensionless terms of 2b/Di, We and Re were excluded from Equation 5.1 one
by one, respectively, and the following three empirical equations were derived
using regression analysis. Figures 5.49- 5.51 show the variation of (Sc/Di)measured
with (Sc/Di)calculated for the aforementioned three cases.

(Sc/Di) = Fr-0.066 Re-0.503 We0.747 with R2=0.963 5.2

(Sc/Di) = Fr0.580 Re0.00795 with R2=0.929 5.3
(Sc/Di) = Fr0.609 with R2=0.904 5.4
If the correlation coefficient of the above equations are compared with each
other, it is seen that R2 value of Sc/Di is slightly smaller than that of the general
equation of Sc/Di.

4
(Sc/Di)measured

3
Perfect
Agreement
%-25 Error
2
%25 Error

1 Baykara

Haspolat
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.49: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.2 for symmetrical

approach flow conditions

73
 6

4
(Sc/Di)measured

3 Perfect
Agreement
%-35 Error
2
%35 Error

1 Baykara

Haspolat
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.50: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.3 for symmetrical

approach flow conditions

4
(Sc/Di)measured

3 Perfect
Agreement
%-35 Error
2
%35 Error

1 Baykara

Haspolat
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.51: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.4 for symmetrical

approach flow conditions

74
5.2.6. Scale Effect Analysis for Sc/Di under Symmetrical Approach Flow
Conditions

In literature, there are many studies conducted to estimate the critical

submergence to avoid vortex formation in various types of intakes
experimentally. However, model studies can not be used directly to predict
prototype results because of scale effects. In hydraulics, models are tried to be
constructed such a way that a complete similarity between model and prototype
is satisfied. However, this is not possible, because equality of Froude, Reynolds
and Weber numbers simultaneously between prototype and model requires the
length ratio, Lr=Lm/Lp=1 which is not practicable. Here and in the following the
subscripts; r, m and p stand for ‘ratio’, ‘model’ and ‘prototype’, respectively. It
also means that the length ratio of a model should be selected as close as to 1 to
get more reliable results. Thus, model studies are constructed and conducted
according to the main dimensionless parameter of the flow type. In vortex
studies, models are established according to Froude law which means other
important dimensionless parameters, such as Reynolds and Weber numbers, are
neglected. Neglecting of these parameters introduces scale effect on the data of
models.

To investigate the scale effect subject in this study, from pipes of six different
diameters one of them was selected as the model and other larger pipes are
considered as prototype. For scale effect analysis, the experiments having the
same Froude numbers and close 2b/Di values were tried to be selected. The ratio
of dimensionless critical submergence, length ratio, Reynolds and Weber
numbers are calculated to see the effect of neglected parameters on Sc/Di for each
sample. All of the calculated parameters were tabulated in Table 5.4 and
variation of the dimensionless critical submergence ratio, (Sc/Di)r, with the
related parameters of Fr, Lr, (Re)r and (We)r were presented in Figures 5.52-5.55,
respectively. Here;

(Sc/Di)r = (Sc/Di)m/(Sc/Di)p, (Re)r = (Re)m/(Re)p and (We)r=(We)m/(We)p.

75
 Table 5.4: Hydraulic and geometric parameters used in the analysis of scale
effect

Di=30 cm (Prototype) versus Di=25 cm (Model) (Present Study)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
1 30.0 0.738 3.33 205862 1937
0.833 0.786 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.580 3.20 156605 1345
0.40
1 30.0 0.656 4.00 205862 1937
0.833 0.872 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.572 4.00 156605 1345
1 30.0 0.777 3.33 231595 2451
0.833 0.768 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.597 3.20 176180 1702
0.45
1 30.0 0.759 4.00 231595 2451
0.833 0.804 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.610 4.00 176180 1702
1 30.0 0.814 4.00 257328 3026
0.50 0.833 0.789 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.642 4.00 195756 2102
Di=30 cm (Prototype) versus Di=25 cm (Model) (Baykara, 2013)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
1 30.0 0.560 3.33 178500 1450
0.35 0.833 0.982 0.762 0.707
2 25.0 0.550 3.20 136000 1025
1 30.0 0.675 3.33 204500 1925
0.40 0.833 0.956 0.763 0.701
2 25.0 0.645 3.20 156000 1350
1 30.0 0.710 4.00 230500 2450
0.833 0.993 0.764 0.704
2 25.0 0.705 4.00 176000 1725
0.45
1 30.0 0.755 3.33 230500 2450
0.833 0.947 0.764 0.704
2 25.0 0.715 3.20 176000 1725
1 30.0 0.805 4.67 256500 3020
0.833 0.807 0.764 0.695
2 25.0 0.650 4.80 196000 2100
1 30.0 0.820 4.00 256500 3020
0.50 0.833 0.988 0.764 0.695
2 25.0 0.810 4.00 196000 2100
1 30.0 0.830 3.33 256500 3020
0.833 0.922 0.764 0.695
2 25.0 0.765 3.20 196000 2100

76
 Table 5.4 continued

Di=30 cm (Prototype) versus Di=19.4 cm (Model) (Present Study)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
1 30.0 0.776 3.33 231595 2451
0.45 0.647 0.834 0.520 0.418
3 19.4 0.647 3.09 120434 1025
1 30.0 0.815 4.00 257328 3026
0.50 0.647 0.648 0.520 0.418
3 19.4 0.528 4.12 133816 1266
Di=25 cm (Prototype) versus Di=19.4 cm (Model) (Present Study)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
2 25.0 0.642 4.00 195756 2102
0.50 0.776 0.824 0.684 0.602
3 19.4 0.529 4.12 133816 1266
Di=25 cm (Prototype) versus Di=19.4 cm (Model) (Baykara, 2013)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
2 25.0 0.975 4.00 236000 3025
0.776 0.718 0.676 0.598
3 19.4 0.700 4.12 159500 1810
0.60
2 25.0 0.855 3.20 236000 3025
0.776 0.813 0.676 0.598
3 19.4 0.695 3.09 159500 1810
2 25.0 1.090 4.00 276000 4125
0.776 0.775 0.678 0.596
3 19.4 0.845 4.12 187000 2460
0.70
2 25.0 0.915 3.20 276000 4125
0.776 0.820 0.678 0.596
3 19.4 0.750 3.09 187000 2460
2 25.0 1.180 4.00 316000 5400
0.776 0.784 0.676 0.596
3 19.4 0.925 4.12 213500 3220
0.80
2 25.0 0.995 3.20 316000 5400
0.776 0.849 0.676 0.596
3 19.4 0.845 3.09 213500 3220
Di=25 cm (Prototype) versus Di=14.4 cm (Model) (Present Study)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
2 25.0 0.800 4.00 234907 3026
0.60 0.576 0.616 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.493 4.17 102690 1004
2 25.0 0.957 4.00 254482 3552
0.65 0.576 0.671 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.642 4.17 111248 1178

77
 Table 5.4 continued

Di=19.4 cm (Prototype) versus Di=14.4 cm (Model) (Present Study)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
3 19.4 0.904 4.12 160579 1822
0.60 0.742 0.545 0.640 0.551
4 14.4 0.493 4.17 102690 1004
3 19.4 1.023 4.12 187342 2481
0.70 0.742 0.772 0.640 0.551
4 14.4 0.790 4.17 119805 1367
3 19.4 1.000 4.12 214105 3240
0.80 0.742 0.951 0.640 0.551
4 14.4 0.951 4.17 136920 1785
Di=19.4 cm (Prototype) versus Di=14.4 cm (Model) (Baykara, 2013)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
3 19.4 1.130 4.12 293000 6180
1.10 0.742 0.907 0.679 0.546
4 14.4 1.025 4.17 199000 3375
3 19.4 1.165 4.12 319500 7280
1.20 0.742 0.906 0.679 0.598
4 14.4 1.055 4.17 217000 4350
3 19.4 1.190 4.12 346500 8600
1.30 0.742 0.899 0.678 0.593
4 14.4 1.070 4.17 235000 5100
3 19.4 1.235 4.12 373000 9900
1.40 0.742 0.891 0.678 0.593
4 14.4 1.100 4.17 253000 5875
3 19.4 1.390 4.12 399500 11350
1.50 0.742 0.824 0.681 0.581
4 14.4 1.145 4.17 272000 6600
Di=10 cm (Prototype) versus Di=5.0 cm (Model) (Present Study)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
5 10.0 2.780 8.00 396182 21522
4.00 0.500 0.468 0.360 0.259
6 5.0 1.300 8.00 142661 5581
5 10.0 2.820 8.00 445704 27238
4.50 0.500 0.521 0.354 0.250
6 5.0 1.468 8.00 157580 6810
5 10.0 2.865 8.00 495227 33628
5.00 0.500 0.579 0.354 0.250
6 5.0 1.660 8.00 175089 8407

78
 Table 5.4 continued

Di=10 cm (Prototype) versus Di=5.0 cm (Model) (Baykara,2013)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di 2b/Di Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
5 10.0 2.825 8.00 495000 33700
5.00 0.500 0.688 0.352 0.249
6 5.0 1.945 8.00 174000 8400
5 10.0 2.885 8.00 545000 40700
5.50 0.500 0.724 0.351 0.251
6 5.0 2.090 8.00 191500 10200
5 10.0 3.045 8.00 595000 48400
6.00 0.500 0.745 0.351 0.249
6 5.0 2.270 8.00 209000 12050
5 10.0 3.210 8.00 570000 56750
6.50 0.500 0.769 0.397 0.250
6 5.0 2.400 8.00 226500 14200

1.2

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6

0.4

Envelope Curves
0.2 Baykara

Present Study
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fr

Figure 5.52: (Sc/Di)r vs Fr for scale effect investigation under symmetrical

approach flow conditions

79
 1.2

1 Envelope Curves

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6
Eqn. 5.6
0.4

0.2 Baykara

Present Study
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lr

Figure 5.53: (Sc/Di)r vs Lr for scale effect investigation under symmetrical

approach flow conditions

1.2

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6 Envelope Curves

0.4

0.2 Baykara

Present Study
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
(Re)r

Figure 5.54: (Sc/Di)r vs (Re)r for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions

80
 1.2

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6
Envelope Curves

0.4

0.2 Baykara

Present Study
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
(We)r

Figure 5.55: (Sc/Di)r vs (We)r for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions

Figure 5.52 shows that (Sc/Di)r values change between 0.55 and 1 for the Froude
numbers up to 1.5. As Froude number gets larger than 4, (Sc/Di)r values vary
between 0.47 and 0.77. These data groups can be shown between two envelope
curves as depicted in Figure 5.52. Among the data used in these analysis,
unfortunately there is no data of (Sc/Di)r for the range of Froude number between
1 and 4. From the general trend of data distribution it may be concluded that
(Sc/Di)r data of Froude number between 1.5 and 4 may take place between the
shown envelope curves.

Effect of length ratio on the variation of (Sc/Di)r is shown in Figure 5.53. The
figure implies that as Lr increases, (Sc/Di)r also increases following the trend
given by the envelope curves and finally at Lr =1, naturally the value of
(Sc/Di)r=1 is obtained. For Lr values less than 0.5, it can be stated that (Sc/Di)r
may be less than 0.47. To support these estimations, more data are required at Lr
values less than 0.5. From all these information it can be concluded that in model

81
studies related to the determination of Sc/Di, the length scale of the models
should be selected as large as possible to minimize the scale effect problem.

A relation between Sc/Di and Lr can also be obtained from Equation 5.1. Since
Equation 5.1 is dimensionless, it can be stated that this equation must be satisfied
by model and prototype for a model based on Froude model law. Equation 5.5
can be written for (Sc/Di)r from Equation 5.1 as follows.

𝑆
𝑆𝑐 ( 𝑐 )𝑚
𝐷𝑖
(𝐷 )𝑟 = 𝑆 = (Sc/Di)r = (Fr)r0.193 (Re)r-0.331 (We)r0.544 (2b/Di)r-0.241 5.5
𝑖 ( 𝑐 )𝑝
𝐷𝑖

where (Fr)r=(Fr)m/(Fr)p=1, (Re)r=Vr(Di)r/νr , (We)r=ρrVr2(Di)r/σr , νr =1, ρr=1,

σr=1, (2b/Di)r≅1 and Vr=√(𝐷𝑖 )𝑟 =√𝐿𝑟 and

𝑆
(𝐷𝑐 )𝑟 = 𝐿𝑟 0.592 5.6
𝑖

(Sc/Di)p can be written from Equation 5.6 in the following form;

𝑆 𝑆
(𝐷𝑐 )𝑝 = 𝛽𝑠 . (𝐷𝑐 )𝑚 5.7
𝑖 𝑖

where βs=1/(Lr)0.592 which can be called as ‘scale effect correction coefficient for
symmetrical approach flow conditions’ and valid within the ranges of Lr tested
in this study.

For instance, if Lr is taken as 0.5, with the corresponding (Sc/Di)p of 2.87 and
(Sc/Di)m of 1.66 from Table 5.4, the scale effect correction coefficient βs
becomes 1.73. The estimated value of βs calculated from Equation 5.7 is 1.51.

Equation 5.6 was plotted in Figure 5.53 to compare the measured (Sc/Di)r values
with those of calculated from Equation 5.6. In this figure the curve of Equation
5.6 seems to be very close to the best fit curve of the available data. The general
trend of this curve also implies that (Sc/Di)r decreases as Lr decreases. Additional
data are required to make a conclusion how this curve continue at lower values
of Lr not tested in this study. However, from the general trend of the lower
envelope curves of Figure 5.52 and Figure 5.53, it may be stated that for Lr less
82
than 0.5, the value of (Sc/Di)r may not be less than 0.40-0.45. Figures 5.54 and
5.55 show the effect of (Re)r and (We)r on the variation of (Sc/Di)r , respectively.
From the distribution of the available data and their related envelope curves it
can be stated that as (Re)r and (We)r increase, (Sc/Di)r get the value of 1.0 for
(Re)r=1.0 and (We)r=1.0.

5.2.7. Comparison of Equation 5.4 with Similar Ones in Literature

Figure 5.56 shows the available data on existing intake structures with critical
submergence equations proposed by Gordon (1970), Reddy and Pickford (1972)
and Baykara (2013). Equation 5.4 was also plotted in this figure to compare it
with the others on the figure. Equation 5.4 lies below all the other curves given
in the figure. The agreement between Equation 5.4 and the relation of Gordon’s
(1970) is quite good for Froude numbers up to about 0.3. Since the data of
Baykara (2013) had been used in the derivation of Equation 5.4 with the data of
present study, there is a certain deviation between these two equations. For larger
Froude numbers, Equation 5.4 estimates much lower Sc/Di values than the others.
From the tests of small diameter intakes large Froude numbers were obtained in
the present study. Whereas, most of the data presented in Figure 5.56 were
provided from existing intake structures. Therefore, the data of small diameter
pipes used in the present study represent only the data of small scale models from
which one can not directly convert the model data to prototype values. The scale
effects due to neglecting the similarity of Re, We and probably the wall
clearance, are the basic reasons for not having good agreement between the
model data and prototype data.

83
 6.00

Gordon
Symmetrical
5.00 Approach(1970

4.00

Reddy and Pickford

(1972)
Sc/Di

3.00

Baykara
(2013)

2.00

1.00
Present
Study,
Eqn. 5.4

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Fr

Figure 5.56: Comparison of present study with past studies of Gordon (1970),
Reddy and Pickford (1972) and Baykara (2013)

84
5.2.8. Prevention of Vortices in Symmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

In Baykara’s (2013) study, to prevent the formation of air-entraining vortices

fixed horizontal plates of various dimensions were used as anti-vortex devices at
just over the intake entrance. From these experiments, it was observed that
especially at high water depths in the reservoir, the plates were not satisfactory
in eliminating the air-entraining vortices, only the strengths of the vortices were
reduced and vortices of types 2-3 with vortex tails formed. In the present study
some preliminary experiments were conducted with fixed horizontal plates and
floating rafts and it was observed that the rafts were completely preventing the
formation of the air entraining vortices. After that the attention was given on the
performance of floating rafts of various dimensions.

Table 5.5 presents the related data of floating rafts used as anti-vortex device to
eliminate formation of air-entraining vortices in front of the intake structure. In
this table for an intake pipe of known diameter, the dimensions of the rafts, Lraft
as the length and Wraft as the width and the location of the vortices forming were
listed. The symbols used in this table; ‘L.Z’, ‘R.Z’, ‘M.Z’, ‘L.Z&R.Z’, ‘U.S’ and
‘S’ stand for ‘left zone with respect to the flow direction’, ‘right zone with
respect to the flow direction’, ‘middle zone’, ‘both left and right zone’,
‘unsatisfactory-air entraining vortex is forming’ and ‘satisfactory –air-entraining
vortex is not forming’, respectively.

The analysis of Table 5.5 shows that the floating rafts are very successful devices
to prevent the formation of air-entraining vortices for all the intakes tested. Some
unsuccessful cases given in the table with different colors are due to either
insufficient length, width or length and width of tested floating rafts. If the
related dimensions of the rafts are increased, successful results are obtained.
Table 5.6 shows the summary of Table 5.5 in terms of the floating raft
dimensions for which air entraining vortices were not observed for the stated
intake diameters, wall-clearance and Froude number ranges. For intakes of
Froude number less than about 3.0, it can be concluded that floating rafts of

85
Lraft/Di =2.0 and Wraft/Di=2.0 can prevent formation of air entraining vortices
safely.

When floating raft experiments were being conducted, subsurface vortex

formation were observed below floating rafts under extreme flow conditions.
These extreme conditions were observed at maximum discharge and minimum
submergence levels such as 2-3 cm above the top of the horizontal intake. At
some cases where the submergence was 5-6 cm above the intake, vortices
occurred behind the floating raft and left their bubbles under the floating rafts.
Many bubbles accumulated below the floating raft and these bubbles were
gathered and formed air core vortices under the floating raft after 1-2 cm
decreasing the level of submergence. Also, individual bubbles were pulled into
the intake in a large amount. These cases were not included in the table, because
these type of cases are not usual operational conditions in reservoirs.

86
 Table 5.5 Performance of floating rafts under symmetrical approach flow
conditions

Location
Sc/Di Sc/Di
of Vortex Location of
before Location after
Di (cm) 2b/Di Fr Lraft/Di Wraft/Di before Vortex after Result
using of Raft using
using using Raft
Raft Raft
Raft
2.00 1.80 0.53 1.00 1.00 L.Z & R.Z L.Z and back M.Z 1.80 U.S
2.00 1.80 0.53 1.50 1.00 L.Z & R.Z L.Z and back L.Z & M.Z 1.80 U.S
2.00 1.80 0.53 2.00 1.50 L.Z & R.Z - M.Z - S
2.00 0.46 0.28 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
2.67 0.86 0.44 1.00 0.50 M.Z M.Z and back M.Z 0.76 U.S
2.67 0.86 0.44 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30
2.67 0.47 0.24 1.00 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
3.33 0.81 0.48 1.50 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
3.33 0.40 0.24 1.50 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.00 0.82 0.51 1.00 0.50 M.Z M.Z and back M.Z 0.73 U.S
4.00 0.82 0.51 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.00 0.40 0.25 1.00 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
2.40 0.54 0.44 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
2.40 0.65 0.63 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
3.20 0.58 0.39 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
3.20 0.60 0.47 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
3.20 0.63 0.55 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
25 4.00 0.56 0.39 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.00 0.97 0.65 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.80 0.56 0.46 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.80 0.67 0.64 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
5.60 0.47 0.51 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
5.60 0.87 0.70 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
4.00 6.61 6.01 1.50 1.50 L.Z L.Z and back M.Z 6.00 U.S
4.00 6.61 6.01 3.00 3.00 L.Z - L.Z-M.Z - S
4.00 2.03 2.87 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
6.00 2.82 5.68 1.50 1.50 M.Z M.Z and back M.Z 1.70 U.S
6.00 2.82 5.68 1.50 3.00 M.Z L.Z M.Z 1.5 U.S
10
6.00 2.82 5.68 5.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
6.00 2.17 2.37 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
8.00 3.07 5.68 1.50 1.50 L.Z L.Z and back M.Z 1.40 U.S
8.00 3.07 5.68 5.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
8.00 2.27 2.29 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
8.00 3.66 10.43 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
5 8.00 2.04 5.96 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
12.00 4.36 9.23 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
: Insufficient length
: Insufficient width
: Insufficient length and width

87
 Table 5.6 Data of most effective floating rafts

Di (cm) ≤ 2b/Di ≤ ≤ Fr ≤ Lraft/Di Wraft/Di

30 2.00-4.00 0.24-0.53 2.00 1.50
25 2.40-5.60 0.39-0.70 1.60 0.50
10 4.00-8.00 2.29-6.01 5.00 2.00
5 8.00-12.00 5.96-10.43 2.00 2.00

5.3. Asymmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

The ranges of the important hydraulic and geometric parameters of Equation 3.7
used and calculated in the experiments of the asymmetrical approach flow
conditions are given in Table 5.7. The variation of Sc/Di with relevant parameters
are discussed in the following sections.

Table 5.7: The ranges of the important parameters used and calculated in the
experiments of the asymmetrical approach flow conditions

Interval of
Di Number
Qi
(cm) Sc/Di Fr Re We Ψ=(b1/b2)*[(b1+b2)/Di] of Obs.
(lt/s)

66.31 1.81 0.55 281439 3620 3.06

30 32
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
24.94 0.41 0.21 105895 513 1.50
52.98 1.08 0.69 268874 3996 5.20
25 88
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
24.27 0.35 0.32 123169 839 2.00
45.03 3.21 5.79 573617 45116 9.17
10 43
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
11.63 1.29 1.50 148120 3008 2.80
14.33 4.40 10.43 365146 36564 14.40
5 28
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4.07 1.32 2.96 103697 2949 5.60

88
5.3.1. Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for the
Present Study under Asymmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

In this part, the variation of Sc/Di with Fr, Re and We as a function of ψ for the
tested pipe diameters of Di= 30 cm, 25 cm, 10 cm and 5 cm are presented in
Figures 5.57-5.68. The following conclusions can be made from the analysis of
these figures;

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
Sc/Di

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
ψ=1.50 (b1=30, b2=60, Di=30 cm) ψ=1.60 (b1=30,b2=50,Di=30 cm)
0.20 ψ=1.75 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=30 cm) ψ=2.22 (b1=40,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
ψ=2.40 (b1=40,b2=50,Di=30 cm) ψ=3.06 (b1=50,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
0.00
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600
Fr

Figure 5.57: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

89
 2.00
ψ=1.50 (b1=30, b2=60, Di=30 cm)
1.80
ψ=1.60 (b1=30,b2=50,Di=30 cm)
1.60 ψ=1.75 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=30 cm)
1.40 ψ=2.22 (b1=40,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
ψ=2.40 (b1=40,b2=50,Di=30 cm)
1.20
ψ=3.06 (b1=50,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
Sc/Di

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.58: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
Sc/Di

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
ψ=1.50 (b1=30, b2=60, Di=30 cm) ψ=1.60 (b1=30,b2=50,Di=30 cm)
0.20 ψ=1.75 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=30 cm) ψ=2.22 (b1=40,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
ψ=2.40 (b1=40,b2=50,Di=30 cm) ψ=3.06 (b1=50,b2=60,Di=30 cm)
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
We

Figure 5.59: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=30 cm

90
 1.2
ψ=1.03 (b1=20, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.07 (b1=20, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
1
ψ=1.12 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.20 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=25 cm)
0.8 ψ=1.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.71 (b1=30,b2=70, Di=25 cm)
Sc/Di

ψ=1.80 (b1=30,b2=60,Di=25 cm)

0.6
ψ=1.92 (b1=30, b2=50,Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.10 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=25 cm)
0.4 ψ=2.51 (b1=40, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.67 (b1= 40, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.88 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=25 cm)
0.2 ψ=3.43 (b1=50, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=3.67 (b1=50, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
0 ψ=4.46 (b1=60,b2=70, Di=25 cm)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fr

Figure 5.60: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

1.2

ψ=1.03 (b1=20, b2=70, Di=25 cm)

1 ψ=1.07 (b1=20, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.12 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.20 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=25 cm)
0.8 ψ=1.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.71 (b1=30,b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.80 (b1=30,b2=60,Di=25 cm)
Sc/Di

0.6 ψ=1.92 (b1=30, b2=50,Di=25 cm)

ψ=2.10 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.51 (b1=40, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
0.4 ψ=2.67 (b1= 40, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.88 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=25 cm)
ψ=3.43 (b1=50, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
0.2 ψ=3.67 (b1=50, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
ψ=4.46 (b1=60,b2=70, Di=25 cm)

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Re

Figure 5.61: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

91
 ψ=1.03 (b1=20, b2=70, Di=25 cm) ψ=1.07 (b1=20, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.12 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=25 cm) ψ=1.20 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=25 cm) ψ=1.71 (b1=30,b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=1.80 (b1=30,b2=60,Di=25 cm) ψ=1.92 (b1=30, b2=50,Di=25 cm)
1.2 ψ=2.10 (b1=30,b2=40,Di=25 cm) ψ=2.51 (b1=40, b2=70, Di=25 cm)
ψ=2.67 (b1= 40, b2=60, Di=25 cm) ψ=2.88 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=25 cm)
ψ=3.43 (b1=50, b2=70, Di=25 cm) ψ=3.67 (b1=50, b2=60, Di=25 cm)
1 ψ=4.46 (b1=60,b2=70, Di=25 cm)

0.8
Sc/Di

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
We2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Figure 5.62: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=25 cm

3.5

2.5

2
Sc/Di

1.5

1 ψ=2.80 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=10 cm)

ψ=3.00 (b1=20,b2=40,Di=10 cm)
ψ=3.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=10 cm)
0.5 ψ=4.80 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
ψ=5.25 (b1=30,b2=40, Di=10 cm)
ψ=7.20 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fr

Figure 5.63: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=10 cm

92
 3.5

2.5

2
Sc/Di

1.5

1
ψ=2.80 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=10 cm) ψ=3.00 (b1=20,b2=40,Di=10 cm)
ψ=3.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=10 cm) ψ=4.80 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
0.5
ψ=5.25 (b1=30,b2=40, Di=10 cm) ψ=7.20 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
ψ=9.17 (b1=50, b2=60, Di=10 cm)
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000
Re

Figure 5.64: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=10 cm

3.5

2.5

2
Sc/Di

1.5

1
ψ=2.80 (b1=20,b2=50,Di=10 cm) ψ=3.00 (b1=20,b2=40,Di=10 cm)
0.5 ψ=3.33 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=10 cm) ψ=4.80 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
ψ=5.25 (b1=30,b2=40, Di=10 cm) ψ=7.20 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=10 cm)
ψ=9.17 (b1=50, b2=60, Di=10 cm)
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
We

Figure 5.65: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=10 cm

93
 5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00
Sc/Di

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00
ψ=5.60 (b1=20, b2=50, Di=5 cm) ψ=6.00 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=5 cm)
0.50 ψ=6.67 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=5 cm) ψ=9.60 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
ψ=10.50 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=5 cm) ψ=14.40 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Fr

Figure 5.66: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00
Sc/Di

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 ψ=5.60 (b1=20, b2=50, Di=5 cm) ψ=6.00 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=5 cm)
0.50 ψ=6.67 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=5 cm) ψ=9.60 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
ψ=10.50 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=5 cm) ψ=14.40 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Re

Figure 5.67: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

94
 5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00
Sc/Di

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 ψ=5.60 (b1=20, b2=50, Di=5 cm) ψ=6.00 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=5 cm)
0.50 ψ=6.67 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=5 cm) ψ=9.60 (b1=30, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
ψ=10.50 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=5 cm) ψ=14.40 (b1=40, b2=50, Di=5 cm)
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
We

Figure 5.68: Variation of Sc/Di with We for asymmetrical approach flow

conditions, Di=5 cm

The figures reveal that trend lines of the tested data for a given ψ intersect each
other at different points and therefore it is difficult to say something about the
relation between Sc/Di and ψ for a given Fr, Re and We. On the other hand, it can
be said that Sc/Di values increase with increase of Fr, Re and We regardless of
their ψ value.

95
 5.3.2 Variation of Sc/Di with Dimensionless Flow Parameters for the data of Zaloğlu (2014) and Present Study
under Asymmetrical Approach Flow Conditions

96
Figure 5.69: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of present study and Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm
97
Figure 5.70: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of present study and Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm
98
Figure 5.71: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of present study and Zaloğlu (2014), Di=25cm
 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4 ψ= 1.55 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0.2 ψ= 1.72 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

ψ= 2.71 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm) ,Zaloğlu

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Fr

Figure 5.72: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4
ψ= 1.55 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
0.2 ψ= 1.72 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0 ψ= 2.71 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm) ,Zaloğlu

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Re

Figure 5.73: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

99
 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4
ψ= 1.55 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
0.2 ψ= 1.72 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=19.4 cm), Zaloğlu
ψ= 2.71 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=19.4 cm) ,Zaloğlu
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
We

Figure 5.74: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=19.4cm

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4 ψ= 2.08 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

0.2 ψ= 2.31 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

ψ= 3.65 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Fr

Figure 5.75: Variation of Sc/Di with Fr for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

100
 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4 ψ= 2.08 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=14.4 cm),

Zaloğlu
0.2 ψ= 2.31 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=14.4 cm),
Zaloğlu
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Re

Figure 5.76: Variation of Sc/Di with Re for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Sc/Di

0.8

0.6

0.4 ψ= 2.08 (b1=20, b2=40, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu

ψ= 2.31 (b1=20, b2=30, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
0.2
ψ= 3.65 (b1=30, b2=40, Di=14.4 cm), Zaloğlu
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
We

Figure 5.77: Variation of Sc/Di with We for the data of Zaloğlu (2014),
Di=14.4cm

101
Di=25 cm is a common pipe diameter between the present and Zaloğlu’s (2014)
studies as mentioned in the symmetrical approach flow section, so the results of
two study are comparable for only the case of Di=25 cm. It can be seen from
Figures 5.69- 5.71 that data trend of the present study shows a good relation with
those of Zaloğlu (2014) for the value of ψ=1.33 and ranges of tested Fr, Re and
We values. For the remaining common ψ values, 1.20 and 2.10, Sc/Di values of
the present study remain above those of Zaloğlu (2014). For the rest of the
figures, Sc/Di values exhibit the same increasing trend with increase of Fr, Re
and We numbers for a given ψ value as stated in the previous part. However,
from analyzing of all figures, unfortunately, it is hard to say something about
independency of Sc/Di values from ψ parameter for the ranges of tested Fr, Re
and We numbers.

In the following sections, empirical formula derivation and scale effect analysis
are presented by using the values of ψ presented in Table 5.8, roughly ψ>2.00,
for the ranges of tested Fr, Re and We. The small ψ values imply the large
asymmetry and, therefore, cause high variation in Sc/Di and these values are not
applied in practical problems. In practice, intakes which are under excessive
asymmetrical approach flow conditions and narrow side wall clearances are not
preferred. The limit value of ψ corresponding to excessive asymmetry is
assumed to be less than about 2.00 in this study.

Table 5.8 Limit values of ψ, Fr, Re and We above which are preferred to used.

Di (cm) 5.0 10.0 14.4 19.4 25.0 30.0

ψ≥
5.60 2.80 2.08 2.71 2.10 2.22
Fr ≥
2.96 1.49 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.23
Re ≥
103697 148120 82667 116617 155587 117771
We ≥
2949 3008 656 969 1338 634

102
5.3.3. Empirical Formula Derivation for Dimensionless Critical
Submergence

[Link]. The General Case

In the result of dimensional analysis, Sc/Di is given as a function of relevant

hydraulic and geometric dimensionless parameters included in Equation 3.7.
Multiple variable regression analysis is conducted regarding that equation and
experimental results with considering the limit values of ψ presented in Table
5.8 and the following equation is obtained with of R2=0.949 ;

(Sc/Di) = Fr 0.154 Re-0.315 We0.462 ψ0.071 5.8

Figure 5.78 shows that calculated Sc/Di values from Equation 5.8 remain within
±25% error lines.

4
(Sc/Di)measured

Perfect Agreement
2
%-25 Error
%25 Error
1
Haspolat
Zaloğlu
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.78: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.1 for asymmetrical

approach flow conditions

103
[Link]. Simplified Empirical Equations for Sc/Di

As done in the symmetric approach flow part, similarly, dimensionless terms of

ψ, We and Re were removed from Equation 5.8 one by one, respectively to
obtain more simplified form of the empirical equation of Sc/Di. These simplified
equations are given below with their own figures which show the variation of
(Sc/Di)measured with (Sc/Di)calculated (Figures 5.79-5.81).

(Sc/Di) = Fr0.209 Re-0.281 We0.421 with R2=0.947 5.9

(Sc/Di) = Fr0.555 Re0.0025 with R2=0.929 5.10

(Sc/Di) = Fr0.564 with R2=0.927 5.11

It is seen that by removing the dimensionless terms from Equation 5.8, R2 values
of the equations slightly decreases. Almost all of the data points in Figures 5.79-
5.81 remain within ±30% error lines.

4
(Sc/Di)measured

3 Perfect
Agreement
%30 Error
2
%-30 Error

1 Haspolat

Zaloğlu
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.79: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.9 for asymmetrical

approach flow conditions

104
 6

4
(Sc/Di)measured

Perfect Agreement
2
%30 Error
%-30 Error
1
Haspolat
Zaloğlu
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.80: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.10 for

asymmetrical approach flow conditions

4
(Sc/Di)measured

Perfect Agreement
2
%30 Error
%-30 Error
1
Haspolat
Zaloğlu
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Sc/Di)calculated

Figure 5.81: (Sc/Di)measured vs (Sc/Di)calculated from Equation 5.11 for

asymmetrical approach flow conditions

105
5.3.4. Scale Effect Analysis for Sc/Di under Asymmetrical Approach Flow
Conditions

In symmetric approach flow part, it was mentioned that scale effect analysis was
conducted such a way that from pipes of six different diameters one of them was
selected as the model and other larger pipes are considered as prototype. In a
similar manner, scale effect analysis is conducted and explained in this part for
the asymmetrical approach flow conditions. The experiments having the same
Froude numbers and close ψ values which are also above the limit values of
relevant dimensionless parameters presented in Table 5.8 were tried to be
selected. The ratio of dimensionless critical submergence, length ratio, Reynolds
and Weber numbers are calculated to see the effect of the neglected parameters
on Sc/Di for each sample. All of the calculated parameters were tabulated in
Table 5.9 and variation of the dimensionless critical submergence ratio, (Sc/Di)r,
with the related parameters of Fr, Lr, (Re)r and (We)r were presented in Figures
5.82-5.85, respectively.

Table 5.9: Hydraulic and geometric parameters used in the analysis of scale
effect for asymmetric approach flow conditions

Di=30 cm (Prototype) versus Di=25 cm (Model)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di ψ Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
1 30.0 0.697 2.40 205862 1937
0.40 0.833 0.935 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.652 2.51 156605 1345
1 30.0 0.755 2.40 231595 2451
0.45 0.833 0.935 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.706 2.51 176180 1702
1 30.0 0.792 2.22 257328 3026
0.50 0.833 0.788 0.761 0.694
2 25.0 0.624 2.10 195756 2101

106
 Table 5.9 continued

Di=30 cm (Prototype) versus Di=14.4 cm (Model)

Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di ψ Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
1 30.0 0.792 2.22 257328 3026
0.50 0.480 0.480 0.333 0.230
4 14.4 0.380 2.08 85575 697
Di=25 cm (Prototype) versus Di=14.4 cm (Model)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di ψ Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
2 25.0 0.624 2.10 195756 2101
0.50 0.576 0.609 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.380 2.08 85575 697
2 25.0 0.670 2.10 215331 2543
0.55 0.576 0.628 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.421 2.08 94133 844
2 25.0 0.685 2.10 234907 3026
0.576 0.674 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.462 2.08 102690 1004
0.60
2 25.0 0.979 2.51 234907 3026
0.576 0.691 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.676 2.31 102690 1004
2 25.0 1.051 2.51 254482 3551
0.65 0.576 0.723 0.437 0.332
4 14.4 0.760 2.31 111248 1178
Di=10 cm (Prototype) versus Di=5 cm (Model)
Fr Pipe Di (cm) Sc/Di ψ Re We Lr (Sc/Di)r (Re)r (We)r
5 10.0 2.722 9.17 396182 21517
4.00 0.500 0.526 0.354 0.250
6 5.0 1.432 9.60 140071 5379
5 10.0 2.997 9.17 495227 33621
5.00 0.500 0.527 0.354 0.250
6 5.0 1.579 9.60 175089 8405
5 10.0 3.049 9.17 544750 40681
5.50 0.500 0.542 0.354 0.250
6 5.0 1.653 9.60 192598 10170

107
 1.2

0.8 Envelope Curves

(Sc/Di)r

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fr

Figure 5.82: (Sc/Di)r vs Fr for scale effect investigation under asymmetrical

approach flow conditions

1.2

1
Envelope
0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6

0.4
Eqn. 5.13

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lr

Figure 5.83: (Sc/Di)r vs Lr for scale effect investigation under asymmetrical

approach flow conditions

108
 1.2

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6

0.4

Envelope Curves
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
(Re)r

Figure 5.84: (Sc/Di)r vs (Re)r for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions

1.2

0.8
(Sc/Di)r

0.6

Envelope Curves
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
(We)r

Figure 5.85: (Sc/Di)r vs (We)r for scale effect investigation under symmetrical
approach flow conditions

109
Figure 5.82 shows that (Sc/Di)r values change between 0.48 and 0.94 for the
Froude numbers up to 1. As Froude numbers gets larger than 4, (Sc/Di)r values
vary between 0.526 and 0.542. These data groups can be shown between two
envelope curves as depicted in Figure 5.82. Among the data used in these
analysis, unfortunately there is no data of (Sc/Di)r for the range of Froude number
between 1 and 4. From the general trend of data distribution it may be concluded
that (Sc/Di)r data of Froude number between 1 and 4 may take place between the
shown envelope curves.

Effect of length ratio on the variation of (Sc/Di)r is shown in Figure 5.83. The
figure implies that as Lr increases, (Sc/Di)r also increases following the trend
given by the envelope curves and finally at Lr =1, naturally the value of
(Sc/Di)r=1 is obtained. For Lr values less than 0.48, it can be stated that (Sc/Di)r
may be less than 0.48. To support these estimations, more data are required at Lr
values less than 0.48. From all these information it can be concluded that in
model studies related to the determination of Sc/Di, the length scale of the models
should be selected as large as possible to minimize scale effect problem.

A relation between Sc/Di and Lr can also be obtained from Equation 5.8. Since
Equation 5.8 is dimensionless, it can be stated that this equation must be satisfied
by model and prototype for a model based on Froude model law. Equation 5.12
can be written for (Sc/Di)r from Equation 5.8 as follows.

𝑆
𝑆𝑐 ( 𝑐 )𝑚
𝐷𝑖
(𝐷 )𝑟 = 𝑆 = (Fr)r 0.154 (Re)r-0.315 (We)r0.462 ψr0.071 5.12
𝑖 ( 𝑐 )𝑝
𝐷𝑖

where (Fr)r= (Fr)m/(Fr)p=1, (Re)r=Vr(Di)r/νr , (We)r=ρrVr2(Di)r/σr , ψr=1, νr =1,

ρr=1, σr=1 and Vr=√(𝐷𝑖 )𝑚 =√𝐿𝑟 and

𝑆
(𝐷𝑐 )𝑟 = 𝐿𝑟 0.45 5.13
𝑖

(Sc/Di)p can be written from Equation 5.14 in the following form;

𝑆 𝑆
(𝐷𝑐 )𝑝 = 𝛽𝑎 . (𝐷𝑐 )𝑚 5.14
𝑖 𝑖

110
where βa=1/(Lr)0.45 which can be called as scale effect correction coefficient for
asymmetrical approach flow condition and valid within the ranges of Lr tested in
this study.

For instance, if Lr is taken as 0.58, with the corresponding (Sc/Di)p of 1.05 and
(Sc/Di)m of 0.76 from Table 5.9, the scale effect correction coefficient βa
becomes 1.38. The estimated value of βa calculated from Equation 5.14 is 1.28.

Equation 5.13 was plotted in Figure 5.83 to compare the measured (Sc/Di)r values
with those of calculated from Equation 5.13. In this figure, the data group of the
measured (Sc/Di)r values shows increasing trend with increasing Lr values. The
curve of Equation 5.13 seems to show similar trend to aforementioned data
group, but this curve is remained above the available data. The general trend of
this curve and data group implies that (Sc/Di)r decreases as Lr decreases.
Additional data are required to make a conclusion how this curve continue at
lower values of Lr not tested in this study. However, from the general trend of
the lower envelope curves of Figure 5.82 and Figure 5.83, it may be stated that
for Lr less than 0.5, the value of (Sc/Di)r may not be less than 0.40. Figures 5.84
and 5.85 show the effect of (Re)r and (We)r on the variation of (Sc/Di)r ,
respectively. From the distribution of the available data and their related
envelope curves it can be stated that as (Re)r and (We)r increase, (Sc/Di)r get the
value of 1.0 for (Re)r=1.0 and (We)r=1.0.

5.3.5. Comparison of Equation 5.11 with Similar Ones in Literature

Figure 5.86 shows the past studies of existing intake structures with critical
submergence equations proposed by Gordon (1970), Reddy and Pickford (1972)
and the model study of Baykara (2013). Equation 5.11 was also plotted in this
figure to compare it with the others on the figure. This figure includes both
symmetrical and asymmetrical approach flow results of aforementioned past
studies. The figure shows that Equation 5.11 remains below all other curves
except symmetrical approach of the present study up to Fr=1. The agreement
between Equation 5.11 and Gordon’s (1970) is quite good for low Froude
111
numbers up to 0.3. For larger Froude numbers, Equation 5.11 underestimates the
values of Sc/Di then other studies. The deviation between Sc/Di values of the
present study and those of previous studies gets much larger as Fr increase. The
reason of this can be explained as follows: In the present study large Froude
numbers were provided in intakes of small diameters such as Di= 5 cm and 10
cm. If the intakes of small diameters are considered as the models of the existing
intake structures, the length ratios of the models, Lr, become quite small. As
stated earlier, when Lr gets smaller, the effect of length scale on the value of
Sc/Di gets more significant. Therefore, the Sc/Di equations presented in this study
should not be directly compared with the prototype values of Sc/Di without
considering model scale effects.

112
 8.00
Gordon (1970), Symmetrical Approach

Gordon (1970), Asymmetrical Approach

7.00
Reddy and Pickford (1972)

Present Study , Symmetrical Approach

6.00
Present Study, Asymmetrical Approach

5.00
Sc/Di

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Fr

Figure 5.86: Comparison of present study with past studies of Gordon (1970),
Reddy and Pickford (1972) and Baykara (2013)

5.3.6. Prevention of Vortices in Asymmetrical Approach Flow

Conditions

In this part of asymmetrical approach flow study, the same explanations and
abbreviations with the relevant part of symmetrical approach flow study are also
valid, so a brief explanation will be given.

Table 5.10 presents the related data of floating rafts used as anti-vortex device
to eliminate formation of air-entraining vortices in front of the intake structure.
113
From the analysis of Table 5.10, it can be stated that floating rafts are very
successful for this case also. A few unsuccessful cases were encountered and
these problems were overcome by increasing the dimensions of the rafts.. Table
5.11 shows the summary of Table 5.10 in terms of floating raft dimensions for
which air entraining vortices were not observed for the stated intake diameters,
wall-clearance and Froude number ranges.

Table 5.10 Performance of floating rafts under asymmetrical approach flow

conditions

Location Location
Sc/Di Sc/Di
of Vortex of Vortex
before Location after
Di(cm) b1 (cm) b2 (cm) ψ Fr Lraft/Di Wraft/Di before after Result
using of Raft using
using using
Raft Raft
Raft Raft

30 40 1.75 1.81 0.53 1.00 1.00 R.Z M.Z R.Z 0.73 U.S
30 40 1.75 1.81 0.53 1.67 1.00 R.Z - M.Z - S
30 40 1.75 0.46 0.21 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 1.60 1.62 0.54 1.50 1.00 R.Z M.Z R.Z 0.80 U.S
30 50 1.60 1.62 0.54 2.00 1.00 R.Z - R.Z - S
30 50 1.60 0.46 0.26 1.50 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 2.40 0.80 0.48 1.67 0.83 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 40 50 2.40 0.41 0.23 1.00 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 3.06 0.84 0.51 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 3.06 0.49 0.26 1.00 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 60 1.50 1.71 0.55 1.50 1.00 R.Z R.Z&back M.Z 1.71 U.S
30 60 1.50 1.71 0.55 2.00 1.33 R.Z - R.Z - S
30 60 1.50 0.49 0.26 1.50 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 60 2.22 0.84 0.53 1.00 1.00 M.Z&L.Z - M.Z-L.Z - S
40 60 2.22 0.52 0.30 1.00 1.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 1.33 0.44 0.32 1.60 0.50 R.Z-M.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 1.33 0.73 0.64 2.00 1.00 M.Z & R.Z - R.Z-M.Z - S
20 40 1.20 0.42 0.37 2.00 1.00 M.Z - R.Z - S
20 40 1.20 0.72 0.63 2.00 1.00 R.Z-M.Z - R.Z - S
20 50 1.12 0.41 0.40 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 50 1.12 0.60 0.61 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 60 1.07 0.45 0.47 2.00 1.00 M.Z - R.Z - S
25 20 60 1.07 0.56 0.59 2.00 1.00 R.Z - R.Z - S
20 70 1.03 0.35 0.38 2.00 0.80 M.Z - R.Z - S
20 70 1.03 0.46 0.54 2.00 0.80 M.Z - R.Z - S
30 50 1.92 0.58 0.39 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 1.92 0.74 0.61 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 60 1.80 0.61 0.39 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 60 1.80 0.76 0.61 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 70 1.71 0.59 0.41 2.00 0.80 M.Z - R.Z - S

114
 Table 5.10 continued

Location Location
Sc/Di Sc/Di
of Vortex of Vortex
before Location after
Di(cm) b1 (cm) b2 (cm) ψ Fr Lraft/Di Wraft/Di before after Result
using of Raft using
using using
Raft Raft
Raft Raft
30 70 1.71 0.72 0.61 2.00 0.80 M.Z - R.Z - S
30 40 2.10 0.60 0.46 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 40 2.10 0.69 0.64 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 2.88 0.57 0.45 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 2.88 0.70 0.65 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 60 2.67 0.66 0.44 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 60 2.67 0.82 0.67 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
25 40 70 2.51 0.65 0.40 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 70 2.51 1.08 0.69 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 3.67 0.62 0.42 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 3.67 0.76 0.61 1.60 0.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 70 3.43 0.61 0.42 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 70 3.43 0.88 0.58 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
60 70 4.46 0.45 0.40 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
60 70 4.46 1.05 0.64 2.00 0.80 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 3.33 3.21 5.46 1.50 1.50 L.Z&R.Z L.Z&R.Z M.Z 3.11 U.S
20 30 3.33 3.21 5.46 3.00 1.50 L.Z&R.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 3.33 1.51 2.14 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 40 3.00 2.61 5.79 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 40 3.00 1.47 2.22 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 50 2.80 2.39 5.68 1.50 1.50 L.Z - M.Z-L.Z - S
20 50 2.80 1.32 2.14 1.50 1.50 M.Z-L.Z - M.Z-L.Z - S
30 40 5.25 2.91 5.68 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
10
30 40 5.25 1.33 1.50 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 4.80 2.88 5.68 1.50 1.50 M.Z L.Z M.Z 1.40 U.S
30 50 4.80 2.88 5.68 5.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 4.80 1.97 2.14 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 7.20 3.01 5.68 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 7.20 2.38 2.29 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 9.17 3.08 5.79 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
50 60 9.17 1.29 2.29 1.50 1.50 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 6.67 4.02 10.43 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 30 6.67 2.28 5.63 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 40 6.00 3.60 10.43 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 40 6.00 2.30 4.99 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
20 50 5.60 3.24 10.02 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
5 30 40 10.50 4.30 9.62 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 40 10.50 2.76 5.96 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 9.60 4.40 9.62 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
30 50 9.60 1.72 5.96 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 14.40 4.30 9.62 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
40 50 14.40 1.64 5.63 2.00 2.00 M.Z - M.Z - S
: Insufficient length
: Insufficient width
: Insufficient length and width

115
 Table 5.11 Data of most effective floating rafts

Di
(cm) ≤ ψ≤ ≤ Fr ≤ Lraft/Di Wraft/Di
30 1.50-3.00 0.23-0.55 2.00 1.33
25 1.03-4.46 0.32-0.69 2.00 1.00
10 2.80-9.17 2.14-5.79 5.00 2.00
5 6.00-14.40 4.99-10.43 2.00 2.00

116
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Within the present study, formation of air-entraining vortices were investigated

and critical submergences were determined under symmetrical and asymmetrical
approach flow conditions by conducting series of experiments seperately. For
each condition, empirical formula were derived to estimate the critical
submergence with the relevant important geometric and flow parameters. These
empirical formula were also given in their simplified forms and compared with
past studies to see the relation between them and to ensure reliability of the
results. In addition to that, scale effects were investigated and analysis was
performed to project model results on prototype properly. Floating rafts were
tested and used as an anti-vortex devices and their performance on the prevention
of vortex formation were investigated. As a result of the present study, the
following conclusions can be stated:

1. In the symmetrical approach flow condition, Sc/Di increases with the

increase of Fr, Re and We numbers for a given pipe diameter and 2b/Di
value. However, above the limit values of 2b/Di and Fr for a given pipe
diameter, the variation of Sc/Di values becomes almost independent from
2b/Di for the ranges of tested Fr, Re and We.

2. In the asymmetrical approach flow conditions, Sc/Di values increases

with the increase of Fr, Re and We numbers for a given pipe diameters
and ψ value. There is not any limit value of ψ to define independency of
Sc/Di above these limits within the ranges of parameters in this study.
117
 3. In the multiple regression analysis of symmetrical and asymmetrical flow
conditions, removing the dimensionless terms, Re, We and relevant
geometric dimensionless parameters 2b/Di and ψ, respectively, does not
affect Sc/Di significantly. The each equation derived has large correlation
coefficients of R2.

4. Comparision of the Sc/Di equations of the symmetrical and asymmetrical

approach flow conditions with past studies shows that the results of the
present study has a good agreement with those studies up to Fr=0.3. For
larger Froude numbers, past studies highly deviate from the present study
due to the scale effect between these studies.

5. The curve of Sc/Di versus Fr for the asymmetrical approach flow

condition remains slightly above the that of symmetrical approach flow
conditions up to Fr=1. However, they exhibit very close results of Sc/Di
for the tested range of Fr.

6. In the scale effect analysis of symmetrical and asymmetrical approach

flow conditions, decrease in the length ratio, Lr, results in decrease of
(Sc/Di)r and strong scale effect.

7. Floating rafts as a tested anti-vortex devices are quite succesful to prevent

the formation of air-entraining vortices and increases the performance of
intakes significantly for both symmetrical and asymmetrical approach
flow conditions.

Following recommendations can be made to offer an insight into future studies;

1. To predict the prototype critical submergence values, in addition to Lr

values found in the present study, experiments should be conducted with
a larger pipe diameters to acquire lower Lr values.

118
2. To obtain more clear relation between scale effect and Froude number,
experimental studies should be performed to investigate the scale effect
within the range of Froude number, 1≤Fr≤4.

3. More data should be obtained from asymmetrical approach flow

conditions with the larger ranges of Fr,Re and We to investigate the
effect and independency limit values of ψ on Sc/Di values.

119
120
 REFERENCES

Anwar, H.O. (1965), “Flow in a Free Vortex”, Water Power 1965(4), 153-161.

Anwar, H.O. (1967), “Vortices at Low Head Intakes”, Water Power 1967(11),
455-457.

Anwar, H.O. (1968), “Prevention of Vortices at Intakes”, Water Power 1968(10),

393-401.

Anwar, H.O., Weller, J.A. and Amphlett, M.B. (1978), “Similarity of Free-
Vortex at Horizontal Intake”, J. Hydraulic Res. 1978(2), 95-105.

Baykara, A., (2013), “Effect of Hydraulic Parameters on the Formation of

Vortices at Intake Structures”, M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., METU.

Daggett, L.L. and Keulegan, G.H. (1974), “Similitude in Free-Surface Vortex

Formations”, J. Hydraulic Div., ASCE, HY11, 1565-1581.

Durgin, W.W. and Hecker, G.E. (1978), The Modeling of Vortices in Intake
Structures. Proc IAHR-ASME-ASCE Joint Symposium on Design and
Operation of Fluid Machinery, CSU Fort Collins, June 1978 vols I and III.

Gordon, J.L. (1970), “Vortices at Intakes”, Water Power 1970(4), 137-138.

Gulliver, J.S. and Rindels, A.J. (1983), “An Experimental Study of Critical
Submergence to Avoid Free-surface Vortices at Vertical Intakes”, Project Report
No: 224, University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory.

Gürbüzdal, F., (2009), “Scale effects on the formation of vortices at intake

structures”, M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., METU.
121
Hecker, G.E. (1981) “Model- Prototype Comparision of Free Surface Vortices”,
[Link] Div., ASCE, HY10, 1243-1259.

Jain, A.K., Kittur, G.R.R., and Ramanchandra, J.G. (1978), “Vortex Formation
at Vertical Pipe Intakes”, J. Hydraulic Div., ASCE, HY10, 1429-1448.

Knauss, J. (1987), “Swirling Flow Problems at Intakes”, A.A. Balkema,

Rotterdam.

Oakdale Engineering web site, [Link] last

accessed on 21.08.2015.

Padmanabhan, M. and Hecker, G.E. (1984), “Scale Effects in Pump Sump

Models”, J. Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 110, HY11, 1540-1556.

Reddy, Y.R. and Pickford, J.A. (1972), “Vortices at Intakes in Conventional

Sumps”, Water Power 1972(3), 108-109.

Taştan, K. and Yıldırım, N. (2014), “Effects of Froude,Reynolds and Weber

numbers on an air-entraining vortex”, J. Hydraulic Research, 52:3, 421-425.

Taştan, K. and Yıldırım, N. (2010), “Effects of Dimensionless Parameters on

Air-entraining Vortices”, J. Hydraulic Research, 48:1, 57-64.

Yıldırım, N., Kocabaş, F. and Gülcan, S.C (2000), “Flow-Boundary Effects on

Critical Submergence of Intake Pipe”, J. Hydraulic Engng., ASCE, 126, HY4,
288-297.

Yıldırım, N. and Kocabaş, F. (1995), “Critical Submergence for Intakes in Open

Channel Flow”, J. Hydraulic Engng., ASCE, 121, HY12, 900-905.

Yıldırım, N., Kocabaş, F. and Gülcan, S.C (2007). Errata of “Flow-boundary

effects on critical submergence of intake pipe”, J. Hydraulic Engng., ASCE,
133(4), 461.

122
Yıldırım, N. and Kocabaş, F. (2002), “Prediction of Critical Submergence for an
intake pipe”, J. Hydraulic Research., 40:4, 507-518.

Zaloğlu, C., (2014), “Formation of Air Entraining Vortices at Horizantal Water

Intakes”, M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., METU.

Zeigler, E.R. (1976), “Hydraulic Model Vortex Study Grand Coulee Third
Powerplant”, Engineering and Research Center, U.S Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, Colorado.

123
124
 APPENDIX A

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF SYMMETRICAL APPROACH FLOW

In this part, experimental results of symmetric and asymmetric approach flow

conditions are separately given in a tabular form which includes critical
submergence and related important flow properties. In calculation of flow
parameters such as Froude, Reynolds and Weber numbers, gravity and physical
properties of water are taken as;

g= 9.81 (m/s2) ν= 1.004E-6 (m2/s)

σ=7.28E-2 (N/m) ρ= 998 (kg/m3)

Table A.1. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 64.34 0.910 0.531 273053 3408 54.10 1.803
2 58.55 0.828 0.483 248493 2822 53.20 1.773
3 50.27 0.711 0.415 213366 2081 47.60 1.587
4 40.83 0.578 0.337 173285 1372 14.30 0.477
5 33.67 0.476 0.278 142898 933 13.80 0.460

125
 Table A.2. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 53.89 0.762 0.444 228722 2391 25.80 0.860
2 48.50 0.686 0.400 205842 1937 22.50 0.750
3 44.18 0.625 0.364 187491 1607 20.60 0.687
4 40.01 0.566 0.330 169800 1318 18.00 0.600
5 34.44 0.487 0.284 146165 976 15.00 0.500
6 29.19 0.413 0.241 123883 701 14.10 0.470

Table A.3. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 58.55 0.828 0.483 248493 2822 24.30 0.810
2 51.17 0.724 0.422 217166 2156 22.40 0.747
3 45.03 0.637 0.371 191109 1669 21.80 0.727
4 36.79 0.520 0.303 156131 1114 15.30 0.510
5 29.19 0.413 0.241 123883 701 12.00 0.400

Table A.4. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 30 cm, b= 60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 61.42 0.869 0.506 260660 3105 24.60 0.820
2 55.74 0.789 0.460 236554 2558 23.30 0.777
3 50.27 0.711 0.415 213366 2081 20.80 0.693
4 43.33 0.613 0.357 183900 1546 16.30 0.543
5 36.00 0.509 0.297 152781 1067 14.80 0.493
6 29.19 0.413 0.241 123883 701 11.90 0.397

126
 Table A.5. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 13.60 0.544
2 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 14.30 0.572
3 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 15.20 0.608
4 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 15.70 0.628
5 48.50 0.989 0.631 246152 3350 16.30 0.652

Table A.6. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 29.92 0.610 0.389 151848 1275 14.40 0.576
2 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 15.10 0.604
3 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 15.70 0.628

Table A.7. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 29.92 0.610 0.389 151848 1275 14.10 0.564
2 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 15.20 0.608
3 39.19 0.799 0.510 198916 2188 16.20 0.648
4 43.33 0.883 0.564 219912 2674 16.80 0.672
5 47.62 0.971 0.620 241700 3230 21.70 0.868
6 50.27 1.025 0.654 255148 3599 24.20 0.968

127
 Table A.8. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 35.22 0.718 0.458 178727 1766 14.10 0.564
2 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 14.90 0.596
3 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 15.70 0.628
4 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 15.80 0.632
5 47.62 0.971 0.620 241700 3230 16.20 0.648
6 49.38 1.007 0.643 250634 3473 16.70 0.668

Table A.9. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 25 cm, b= 70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 38.80 0.791 0.505 196919 2144 11.70 0.468
2 42.50 0.866 0.553 215698 2572 14.10 0.564
3 46.35 0.945 0.603 235237 3059 16.70 0.668
4 50.31 1.025 0.655 255335 3604 20.70 0.828
5 54.10 1.103 0.704 274571 4168 21.70 0.868

Table A.10. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 20 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 46.75 5.956 6.013 595572 48636 66.10 6.610
2 42.49 5.413 5.465 541278 40172 63.60 6.360
3 36.00 4.586 4.630 458576 28834 52.50 5.250
4 30.66 3.905 3.943 390524 20911 28.90 2.890
5 22.26 2.836 2.863 283612 11029 20.30 2.030

128
 Table A.11. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 28.20 2.820
2 38.39 4.890 4.937 488981 32785 27.80 2.780
3 34.44 4.387 4.429 438716 26391 27.30 2.730
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 24.80 2.480
5 23.59 3.006 3.034 300550 12386 23.80 2.380
6 18.45 2.350 2.373 234990 7572 21.70 2.170

Table A.12. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 10 cm, b= 40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 30.70 3.070
2 39.19 4.993 5.041 499279 34180 28.70 2.870
3 32.91 4.192 4.232 419188 24094 28.00 2.800
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 27.50 2.750
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 24.20 2.420
6 17.84 2.272 2.294 227213 7079 22.70 2.270

Table A.13. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 20 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 14.33 7.303 10.427 365146 36564 18.30 3.660
2 12.69 6.464 9.229 323186 28643 17.20 3.440
3 10.10 5.148 7.351 257409 18170 13.50 2.700
4 8.19 4.174 5.960 208707 11945 10.20 2.040
5 5.60 2.853 4.074 142661 5581 6.50 1.300

129
 Table A.14. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 12.69 6.464 9.229 323186 28643 19.50 3.900
2 10.60 5.403 7.714 270138 20012 18.80 3.760
3 7.74 3.942 5.629 197101 10653 16.50 3.300

Table A.15. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.23 6.739 9.623 336969 31138 16.75 3.350
2 10.60 5.403 7.714 270138 20012 12.50 2.500
3 8.19 4.174 5.960 208707 11945 8.00 1.600
4 5.20 2.650 3.784 132522 4816 5.20 1.040

Table A.16. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di= 5 cm, b= 50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.23 6.739 9.623 336969 31138 18.00 3.600
2 11.63 5.925 8.460 296240 24066 14.50 2.900
3 10.35 5.275 7.532 263746 19076 12.00 2.400
4 8.19 4.174 5.960 208707 11945 8.50 1.700

130
 APPENDIX B

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF ASYMMETRICAL APPROACH

FLOW

Table B.1. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 64.34 0.910 0.531 273053 3408 54.30 1.810
2 58.55 0.828 0.483 248493 2822 48.80 1.627
3 49.38 0.699 0.407 209591 2008 17.10 0.570
4 41.66 0.589 0.344 176796 1429 16.70 0.557
5 35.22 0.498 0.290 149459 1021 15.60 0.520
6 24.95 0.353 0.206 105895 513 13.80 0.460

Table B.2. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 65.32 0.924 0.539 277233 3513 48.70 1.623
2 57.61 0.815 0.475 244488 2732 48.30 1.610
3 47.62 0.674 0.393 202120 1867 15.40 0.513
4 40.01 0.566 0.330 169800 1318 14.50 0.483
5 31.40 0.444 0.259 133264 812 13.70 0.457

131
 Table B.3. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 66.31 0.938 0.547 281439 3620 51.30 1.710
2 58.55 0.828 0.483 248493 2822 50.80 1.693
3 45.89 0.649 0.378 194753 1734 15.50 0.517
4 39.19 0.554 0.323 166342 1265 15.20 0.507
5 31.40 0.444 0.259 133264 812 14.70 0.490

Table B.4. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 58.55 0.828 0.483 248493 2822 23.90 0.797
2 52.07 0.737 0.429 220993 2232 21.80 0.727
3 46.75 0.661 0.386 198423 1799 20.50 0.683
4 39.19 0.554 0.323 166342 1265 20.30 0.677
5 34.44 0.487 0.284 146165 976 17.00 0.567
6 27.75 0.393 0.229 117771 634 12.20 0.407

Table B.5. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 64.34 0.910 0.531 273053 3408 25.30 0.843
2 57.61 0.815 0.475 244488 2732 22.50 0.750
3 50.27 0.711 0.415 213366 2081 21.80 0.727
4 43.33 0.613 0.357 183900 1546 16.50 0.550
5 36.00 0.509 0.297 152781 1067 15.60 0.520

132
 Table B.6. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=30 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 62.38 0.883 0.514 264766 3204 25.30 0.843
2 55.74 0.789 0.460 236554 2558 24.30 0.810
3 48.50 0.686 0.400 205842 1937 23.00 0.767
4 40.01 0.566 0.330 169800 1318 16.30 0.543
5 31.40 0.444 0.259 133264 812 14.80 0.493

Table B.7. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 24.27 0.495 0.316 123169 839 11.00 0.440
2 32.15 0.655 0.418 163167 1472 12.30 0.492
3 38.39 0.782 0.500 194813 2098 13.30 0.532
4 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 15.20 0.608
5 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 16.00 0.640
6 49.38 1.007 0.643 250634 3473 18.30 0.732

Table B.8. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 28.47 0.580 0.370 144471 1154 10.60 0.424
2 31.40 0.640 0.409 159360 1404 11.50 0.460
3 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 13.20 0.528
4 40.01 0.815 0.521 203051 2279 15.50 0.620
5 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 15.90 0.636
6 48.50 0.989 0.631 246152 3350 18.00 0.720

133
 Table B.9. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 30.66 0.625 0.399 155587 1338 10.20 0.408
2 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 11.20 0.448
3 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 12.00 0.480
4 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 13.40 0.536
5 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 14.80 0.592
6 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 15.10 0.604

Table B.10. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 32.91 0.671 0.428 167007 1542 9.50 0.380
2 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 11.20 0.448
3 40.01 0.815 0.521 203051 2279 11.80 0.472
4 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 13.00 0.520
5 45.03 0.918 0.586 228533 2887 14.10 0.564

Table B.11. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 29.19 0.595 0.380 148142 1213 8.80 0.352
2 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 9.90 0.396
3 38.39 0.782 0.500 194813 2098 10.20 0.408
4 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 11.60 0.464

134
 Table B.12. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 35.22 0.718 0.458 179442 1766 15.10 0.604
2 38.39 0.782 0.500 195593 2098 15.60 0.624
3 38.79 0.791 0.505 197648 2143 16.40 0.656
4 42.49 0.866 0.553 216511 2571 16.80 0.672
5 45.89 0.935 0.597 233822 2999 17.10 0.684
6 49.38 1.007 0.643 251637 3473 17.20 0.688

Table B.13. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 29.92 0.610 0.389 151848 1275 14.60 0.584
2 32.15 0.655 0.418 163167 1472 15.70 0.628
3 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 16.20 0.648
4 40.01 0.815 0.521 203051 2279 17.00 0.680
5 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 17.60 0.704
6 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 18.60 0.744

Table B.14. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 29.92 0.610 0.389 151848 1275 15.20 0.608
2 32.15 0.655 0.418 163167 1472 16.00 0.640
3 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 16.30 0.652
4 39.19 0.799 0.510 198916 2188 17.40 0.696
5 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 18.30 0.732
6 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 19.10 0.764

135
 Table B.15. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 31.40 0.640 0.409 159360 1404 14.20 0.568
2 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 14.80 0.592
3 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 15.80 0.632
4 40.83 0.832 0.531 207218 2374 16.70 0.668
5 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 17.40 0.696
6 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 17.90 0.716

Table B.16. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 14.20 0.568
2 36.79 0.750 0.479 186705 1927 14.80 0.592
3 40.83 0.832 0.531 207218 2374 16.30 0.652
4 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 16.50 0.660
5 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 17.40 0.696
6 50.27 1.025 0.654 255148 3599 17.60 0.704

Table B.17. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 33.67 0.686 0.438 170881 1614 16.50 0.660
2 36.79 0.750 0.479 186705 1927 16.80 0.672
3 40.83 0.832 0.531 207218 2374 17.60 0.704
4 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 18.20 0.728
5 47.62 0.971 0.620 241700 3230 19.10 0.764
6 51.17 1.043 0.666 259693 3728 20.60 0.824

136
 Table B.18. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 30.66 0.625 0.399 155587 1338 16.30 0.652
2 33.67 0.686 0.438 170881 1614 17.50 0.700
3 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 17.90 0.716
4 39.60 0.807 0.515 200980 2233 19.30 0.772
5 42.49 0.866 0.553 215649 2571 21.20 0.848
6 47.62 0.971 0.620 241700 3230 25.80 1.032
7 52.98 1.080 0.690 268875 3997 26.90 1.076

Table B.19. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 32.15 0.655 0.418 163167 1472 15.60 0.624
2 36.00 0.734 0.469 182700 1845 16.60 0.664
3 40.01 0.815 0.521 203051 2279 17.70 0.708
4 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 18.30 0.732
5 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 18.60 0.744
6 46.75 0.953 0.608 237279 3113 18.90 0.756

Table B.20. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 32.15 0.655 0.418 163167 1472 15.20 0.608
2 34.44 0.702 0.448 174787 1689 15.80 0.632
3 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 17.20 0.688
4 39.60 0.807 0.515 200980 2233 18.30 0.732
5 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 19.10 0.764
6 44.18 0.900 0.575 224206 2779 19.70 0.788

137
 Table B.21. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=25 cm, b1= 60 cm and b2=70 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 30.66 0.625 0.399 155587 1338 14.00 0.560
2 35.22 0.718 0.458 178727 1766 15.00 0.600
3 37.58 0.766 0.489 190743 2011 16.90 0.676
4 41.66 0.849 0.542 211418 2471 18.70 0.748
5 45.89 0.935 0.597 232890 2999 20.70 0.828
6 49.38 1.007 0.643 250634 3473 21.40 0.856

Table B.22. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 42.49 5.413 5.465 541278 40172 32.10 3.210
2 36.79 4.686 4.731 468629 30112 28.60 2.860
3 32.15 4.095 4.135 409549 22998 19.20 1.920
4 27.04 3.445 3.478 344450 16268 18.10 1.810
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 16.60 1.660
6 16.64 2.119 2.140 211944 6159 15.10 1.510

Table B.23. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 45.03 5.736 5.791 573617 45116 26.10 2.610
2 37.58 4.788 4.834 478765 31429 25.60 2.560
3 32.91 4.192 4.232 419188 24094 23.60 2.360
4 27.04 3.445 3.478 344450 16268 22.30 2.230
5 21.61 2.753 2.779 275279 10390 19.10 1.910
6 17.23 2.195 2.216 219531 6608 14.70 1.470

138
 Table B.24. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 23.90 2.390
2 38.39 4.890 4.937 488981 32785 23.40 2.340
3 33.67 4.289 4.330 428911 25224 20.70 2.070
4 27.04 3.445 3.478 344450 16268 19.50 1.950
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 16.70 1.670
6 16.64 2.119 2.140 211944 6159 13.20 1.320

Table B.25. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 29.10 2.910
2 39.19 4.993 5.041 499279 34180 26.70 2.670
3 34.44 4.387 4.429 438716 26391 26.20 2.620
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 25.90 2.590
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 25.70 2.570
6 17.84 2.272 2.294 227213 7079 23.90 2.390
7 11.63 1.481 1.495 148120 3008 13.30 1.330

Table B.26. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 28.80 2.880
2 39.19 4.993 5.041 499279 34180 27.40 2.740
3 32.91 4.192 4.232 419188 24094 26.40 2.640
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 26.00 2.600
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 22.30 2.230
6 16.64 2.119 2.140 211944 6159 19.70 1.970

139
 Table B.27. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 44.18 5.628 5.682 562758 43424 30.10 3.010
2 39.19 4.993 5.041 499279 34180 29.20 2.920
3 34.44 4.387 4.429 438716 26391 28.40 2.840
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 26.80 2.680
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 25.20 2.520
6 17.84 2.272 2.294 227213 7079 23.80 2.380

Table B.28. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=10 cm, b1= 50 cm and b2=60 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 45.03 5.736 5.791 573617 45116 30.80 3.080
2 38.39 4.890 4.937 488981 32785 29.90 2.990
3 33.67 4.289 4.330 428911 25224 28.60 2.860
4 28.47 3.626 3.661 362622 18030 25.80 2.580
5 22.92 2.920 2.949 292036 11694 24.60 2.460
6 17.84 2.272 2.294 227213 7079 12.90 1.290

Table B.29. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=30 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 14.33 7.303 10.427 365146 36564 20.10 4.020
2 12.15 6.192 8.841 309609 26287 16.00 3.200
3 9.61 4.898 6.994 244899 16447 14.30 2.860
4 7.74 3.942 5.629 197101 10653 11.40 2.280
5 5.60 2.853 4.074 142661 5581 8.00 1.600

140
 Table B.30. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 14.33 7.303 10.427 365146 36564 18.00 3.600
2 11.63 5.925 8.460 296240 24066 16.40 3.280
3 9.13 4.652 6.643 232610 14838 13.60 2.720
4 6.85 3.492 4.986 174594 8359 11.50 2.300
5 4.07 2.074 2.961 103697 2949 7.50 1.500

Table B.31. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 20 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.78 7.019 10.022 350957 33777 16.20 3.240
2 12.15 6.192 8.841 309609 26287 15.50 3.100
3 9.61 4.898 6.994 244899 16447 15.00 3.000
4 7.74 3.942 5.629 197101 10653 12.00 2.400

Table B.32. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=40 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.23 6.739 9.623 336969 31138 21.50 4.300
2 11.37 5.793 8.271 289635 23005 19.60 3.920
3 9.86 5.023 7.171 251126 17294 18.50 3.700
4 8.19 4.174 5.960 208707 11945 13.80 2.760
5 5.60 2.853 4.074 142661 5581 6.60 1.320

141
 Table B.33. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant
important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 30 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.23 6.739 9.623 336969 31138 22.00 4.400
2 11.37 5.793 8.271 289635 23005 16.70 3.340
3 10.10 5.148 7.351 257409 18170 11.00 2.200
4 8.19 4.174 5.960 208707 11945 8.60 1.720
5 5.20 2.650 3.784 132522 4816 7.00 1.400

Table B.34. Experimental results of critical submergence with relevant

important flow properties for Di=5 cm, b1= 40 cm and b2=50 cm

Obs. Qi (lt/s) V(m/s) Fr Re We Sc (cm) Sc /Di

1 13.23 6.739 9.623 336969 31138 21.50 4.300
2 11.63 5.925 8.460 296240 24066 16.00 3.200
3 9.61 4.898 6.994 244899 16447 11.00 2.200
4 7.74 3.942 5.629 197101 10653 8.20 1.640

142