water

Article
Entrapped Air Removal by Hydraulic Means in Gravity Water
Systems in Small Diameter Pipelines
Emilio Quintana-Molina 1 , Jorge Víctor Prado-Hernández 2, * , Joaquim Monserrat-Viscarri 3
and José Rodolfo Quintana-Molina 4

1 International Land and Water Management, Water Resources Management,

Wageningen University & Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
2 Agricultural Engineering and Integral Water Use, Chapingo Autonomous University,
Texcoco 56230, State of Mexico, Mexico
3 Department of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Catalonia, Spain;
[email protected]
4 Smart Biosystems Laboratory, University of Sevilla, 41004 Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Gravity water delivery systems are common around the world to transport water without
the use of external energy. The systems’ inadequate design and operation tend to form entrapped
air bodies in downward pipeline lengths. Entrapped air generates considerable energy losses when
there are no air admission-expulsion valves or due to valve failures. Air removal by hydraulic means
has been modeled under various pipeline diameters, downward slopes, and air volume conditions.
However, no generic entrapped air removal models exist, and the study in small diameters (≤50 mm)
is limited. Most of the models reported in the literature were obtained for diameters greater than
50 mm, presenting notorious discrepancies among each other. In this research, the entrapped air
removal in small diameter pipelines was studied (12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm),
highlighting the importance of the joint study of the air bubbles’ removal by the turbulent action of a
Citation: Quintana-Molina, E.; hydraulic jump downstream of an air body and the consequent removal of remaining entrapped air
Prado-Hernández, J.V.; by a hydrodynamic thrust. Potential models were found for the air bubbles’ removal for different
Monserrat-Viscarri, J.; pipeline diameters and downward slopes. Linear relationships were found between the dimensionless
Quintana-Molina, J.R. Entrapped Air
air removal parameter and the pipeline’s downward slope.
Removal by Hydraulic Means in
Gravity Water Systems in Small
Keywords: entrapped air; dimensionless air removal parameter; energy loss; hydraulic jump;
Diameter Pipelines. Water 2023, 15,
hydrodynamic thrust; air removal
2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w15162870

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Pezzinga

Received: 1 July 2023

1. Introduction
Revised: 4 August 2023 Entrapped air in pipelines represents a constant threat to the proper operation of
Accepted: 5 August 2023 gravity water systems [1]. The problems produced by entrapped air in gravity water
Published: 9 August 2023 systems can have mild effects, including sudden pressure variations or flow decrease, and
severe effects such as acting as vibrations along the system, complete flow blockage, and
damages in pipelines and components of the system such as fittings, valves, filters, pumps,
etcetera [1–3]. The damage induced by entrapped air depends on the air body’s location,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
size, ability to move, system setup, and flow regime (steady-state or transient condition) [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
The entrapped air can be present as small-scale bubbles and large-scale pockets along
This article is an open access article
the pipeline [1]. The size of the air bodies varies greatly throughout the system. Dissolved
distributed under the terms and
air is one of the most common sources introducing entrapped air in pipes; the air content
conditions of the Creative Commons
depends on the pressure and temperature [3]. The water contains approximately 2% of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
dissolved air by volume [4,5]. Another source of entrapped air within water systems is air
4.0/).
entrainment from the atmosphere, which can be confined in the pipelines through pump

Water 2023, 15, 2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15162870 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2023, 15, 2870 2 of 15

inlets, malfunctioning air valves, and leaky system components, as described above [6].
Air vacuum valves are often not the final solution to remove entrapped air from water
delivery systems.
The entrapped air in a pressurized pipeline system is hydraulically removed by: (1) the
turbulence that causes a submerged hydraulic jump, (2) the hydrodynamic thrust over an
entrapped air volume, (3) the slippage that imposes a water–air shear force in a free surface
flow, and (4) the action of a water push over the entrapped air in the pipe cross-section,
similar to a piston in a compression chamber [7].
Entrapped air formation is mainly caused due to an inadequate design and operation of
water delivery systems [8]. Air formation in close conduits is still a common phenomenon
among water systems design. Most design criteria do not consider the entrapped air
scenario; in many cases it is entirely neglected by designers [5]. In order to ensure successful
maintenance, operation, and reparation procedures, the planning of the water distribution
system must consider the effects of entrapped air bodies [9].
In the design of gravity water delivery systems, it is assumed that the pipelines will
be completely filled with water [10]. However, if the system is filled with water for the first
time and there is no complete air removal, the relationship between the available energy
and the water flow will be different. During a low water flow in the system, pipeline
sections can behave as a channel [8]. Those sections contain entrapped air, generating
considerable local energy losses.
From the middle of the last century until now, entrapped air removal phenomenon
and its harmful effects on water delivery systems have been investigated. The lack of a
generic mathematical air removal model which considers any pipeline diameter, pipeline
slope, and removed air volume, among other parameters, makes it necessary to study air
removal in specific diameters of pipes. In general, the mathematical models reported in the
specialized literature present discrepancies between each other since those were generated
under different experimental conditions [3,5,8,11–17]. Consequently, there needs to be
more understanding of scale effects among investigations [1].
Existing models may not be applicable to small diameter pipelines, generally equal
to or smaller than 50 mm, which are common in water supply systems in rural areas [3].
The literature review of Lauchlan et al. [18] and Ramezani et al. [1], regarding entrapped
air removal in water systems, have not integrated experiences in pipelines with small
diameters. Therefore, there is currently insufficient research focused on small diameter
pipes. It is imperative to highlight the proper pipeline-filling process in order to remove air
bodies from gravity water delivery systems from the beginning of the system operation [6,9].
The latter can be achieved by integrating tailored air removal models into the system’s
design (i.e., a model specialized for a 38.1 mm diameter pipeline must be used only for
38.1 mm conducts).
In the present study, the entrapped air effect in gravity-fed pipelines of small diameters
(12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm) was measured and analyzed. The joint effect of
the air bubbles’ removal due to hydraulic jump turbulence (a) and the remaining entrapped
air removal due to a hydrodynamic thrust effect (b) was studied. Both phenomena were
represented with simple mathematical models. In case “a”, potential models were obtained
for each inclination angle as a function of the dimensionless water-air flow ratio and the
Froude number of the minor conjugate of a hydraulic jump. For case “b”, linear models
were obtained for two groups of diameters (1) 12.7, 15.875, 19.05 mm, and (2) 25.4, 31.75,
and 38.1 mm, considering the dimensionless air removal parameter and the pipeline’s
downward angle. Rational use of air evacuation devices is encouraged, considering air
removal models as an important point in the design of water conduction systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Setup
For data collection, an experimental setup was used (Figure 1, Appendix A). The ex-
perimental setup was designed to generate and study air accumulation zones in downward
 perimental setup was designed to generate and study air accumulation zones in down-
ward slope pipelines during the filling system process. The main components of the ex-
perimental setup were a constant head reservoir, a supply reservoir/tank, piezometers,
gate valves, an ultrasonic flow water meter (EQUYSIS model UB-15 accuracy ±2% FS, res-
Water 2023, 15, 2870 olution 0.001 L/s; EQUYSIS Co., Mexico City, Mexico), a submersible pump of 0.373 kW of 15
(Toolcraft Co., Beijing, China) and flexible transparent PVC pipelines of 12.7, 15.875, 19.05,
25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm. The water in the system was recirculated during data collection.
slopeThe considered
pipelines duringPVC
the pipeline’s absolute
filling system roughness
process. The main is components
0.0015 mm [19]. The
of the lengths of
experimental
the test pipelines were 8 m, while the lengths where the entrapped air was
setup were a constant head reservoir, a supply reservoir/tank, piezometers, gate valves, located rangedan
from 0.6 to 1.8 m. The constant head tank’s elevation concerning the
ultrasonic flow water meter (EQUYSIS model UB-15 accuracy ±2% FS, resolution 0.001 system’s final point
L/s;
ranged
EQUYSIS from
Co.,2 to 5 m (Figure
Mexico 1). Increasing
City, Mexico), the diameter
a submersible pumpstudied required
of 0.37 kW moreCo.,
(Toolcraft energy to
Beijing,
remove
China) andthe flexible
entrapped air (greater
transparent PVC height of the
pipelines ofconstant head
12.7, 15.875, tank),
19.05, which
25.4, translates
31.75, and 38.1 into
mm.
aThe
greater
waterwater
in theflow in the
system wassystem.
recirculated during data collection.

Figure 1.
Figure Schemeof
1. Scheme ofthe
the experimental
experimental setup.
setup.

The experimental
The considered PVC setuppipeline’s absolute
operation roughness
was focused is 0.0015
on the mmfilling
system’s [19]. The lengths of
by circulating
the test pipelines were 8 m, while the lengths where the entrapped air was located
water in the pipeline (with air) with a slightly open gate valve (≈10–15% opening, estima- ranged
from 0.6 to 1.8 m. The constant head tank’s elevation concerning the system’s
tion based on the total valve opening) located at the end of the conduct (Figure 1). Conse- final point
ranged from 2 to 5 m (Figure 1). Increasing the diameter studied required
quently, an entrapped air volume was formed in the pipeline’s downward slope during more energy to
the filling of the system; the downward slope was modified owing to the flexible pipelinea
remove the entrapped air (greater height of the constant head tank), which translates into
greater
used andwater flowpoint
its final in theonsystem.
the rectangular tube with holes. In order to study the air re-
The experimental setup
moval, the flow rate in the system operation was focused
was varied on the system’s
by modifying the gatefilling
valve by circulating
opening. The
water in the pipeline (with air) with a slightly open gate valve (≈10–15% opening, es-
ultrasonic flow meter was able to measure the water flow rate in one-second intervals; the
timation based on the total valve opening) located at the end of the conduct (Figure 1).
water flow was constantly measured volumetrically to ensure that the device was operat-
Consequently, an entrapped air volume was formed in the pipeline’s downward slope
ing correctly.
during the filling of the system; the downward slope was modified owing to the flexible
pipeline used and its final point on the rectangular tube with holes. In order to study the
air removal, the flow rate in the system was varied by modifying the gate valve opening.
The ultrasonic flow meter was able to measure the water flow rate in one-second intervals;
the water flow was constantly measured volumetrically to ensure that the device was
operating correctly.

2.2. Energy Loss Generated by Entrapped Air

The energy loss generated by entrapped air bodies in pipelines with small internal
diameters was analyzed. The observed energy loss equivalent to the vertical air body length
was contrasted with the calculated energy loss using the energy equation in entrapped air
bodies in different downward slope pipelines and constant water flow rates (15◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ ,
and 60◦ ) (angle θ in Figure 2).
 where 𝐻 is the calculated energy loss due to entrapped air (m), 𝑧 + 𝑃 ⁄γ is the piezo-
metric head in piezometer 1 (m), 𝑧 + 𝑃 ⁄γ is the piezometric head in piezometer 2 (m),
𝑧 + 𝑃 ⁄γ is the piezometric head in piezometer 3 (m), 𝐿 is the constant length between
piezometers 1 and 2 (m), 𝐿 is the Length 1 between piezometer 2 and the left air–body
Water 2023, 15, 2870 boundary (m), and 𝐿 is the Length 2 between piezometer 3 and the right air–body 4 of 15
boundary (m).

Figure 2. Scheme of energy loss due to entrapped air.

TheBubbles’
2.3. Air observed energy
Removal losstodue
Due to entrapped
Hydraulic air was determined through the elevation
Jump Turbulence
difference
The between the beginning and end of air
air bubbles’ removal due to the turbulence entrapped for a given
of a hydraulic jumpflow ratedown-
located (from
5 × 10 −6 to 1.01 × 10−4 m3 /s).
stream of an air body in 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60° downward slope pipelines in 19.05, 25.4, and
31.75The
mmcalculated energy
of diameter were loss due to
studied. In air
thewas
38.1obtained by applying
mm pipeline diameter,the energy
data equation
related to the
using three piezometers [20]. The initial air body pressure was approximately at atmo-
spheric conditions. Due to fact the air body boundaries were usually not at the location
of piezometers 2 and 3, a unitary head friction loss was defined between piezometers 1
and 2 for a given flow rate. The unitary head friction loss was used to calculate the head
friction loss in Lengths 1 and 2 (Figure 2); those lengths were measured using a flexible
measuring tape. The effect of small air bubbles in Length 2 was neglected. Considering
the head in piezometers 1, 2, and 3, the constant length between piezometers 1 and 2, the
lengths between the air body boundaries regarding piezometers 2 and 3, and a reference
level (Figure 2), the calculated energy loss was obtained using Equation (1):

Hb ≈ (z2 + P2 /γ) − (z3 + P3 /γ) + {[(z1 + P1 /γ) − (z2 + P2 /γ)]/LC }{ L2 − L1 } (1)

where Hb is the calculated energy loss due to entrapped air (m), z1 + P1 /γ is the piezometric
head in piezometer 1 (m), z2 + P2 /γ is the piezometric head in piezometer 2 (m), z3 + P3 /γ
is the piezometric head in piezometer 3 (m), LC is the constant length between piezometers
1 and 2 (m), L1 is the Length 1 between piezometer 2 and the left air–body boundary (m),
and L2 is the Length 2 between piezometer 3 and the right air–body boundary (m).

2.3. Air Bubbles’ Removal Due to Hydraulic Jump Turbulence

The air bubbles’ removal due to the turbulence of a hydraulic jump located down-
stream of an air body in 15◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ downward slope pipelines in 19.05, 25.4,
and 31.75 mm of diameter were studied. In the 38.1 mm pipeline diameter, data related
to the 15◦ and 30◦ downward slope were collected. The experiences of Kalinske and
Robertson [21] and Escarameia [17] were considered to calculate the air flow removed
by a hydraulic jump in a circular pipeline (Qa). The previous authors stated that the
phenomenon depends: to a greater extent on the water flow (Qw ), the hydraulic jump
intensity defined by the Froude number of the minor conjugate (Fr ), and to a lesser extent
Water 2023, 15, 2870 5 of 15

on the pipeline inclination angle (θ). The dimensionless ratio (β) related to the air flow (Q a )
concerning the water flow (Qw ) was determined as a function of Fr and θ (Equation (2)):

Qa
β= = f ( Fr, θ ) (2)
Qw

The water flow was measured using an ultrasonic meter. In contrast, the air flow was
estimated by measuring the air volume change (through air length change) registered in
a given time and constant water flow with a measuring tape. The Froude number of the
hydraulic jump was estimated through the hydraulic characteristics of the circular channel
associated with the pipeline. Measurements of average water velocity, cross-sectional area,
and top width of the water surface were collected. The mathematical models proposed in
this research were obtained from 10 flow measurements and their hydraulic characteristics
for each downward slope and pipeline diameter. Mathematical models with potential
relationships were adjusted and diagnosed.

2.4. Entrapped Air Removal Due to Hydrodynamic Thrust

The complete entrapped air removal due to the action of a hydrodynamic thrust
during the filling process of a gravity-driven water pipeline was studied. The mathematical
representation of the phenomenon was approached with the experiences of the investiga-
tions of Kalinske and Bliss [11], Kent [12], Gandenberger [13], Wisner et al. [14], Corcos [8],
Escarameia [17], Pothof and Clemens [22], Pozos et al. [5], and May et al. [3].
The phenomenon was modeled with the Froude scale, which involves an air removal
velocity (or critical) (V), pipeline diameter (d), and gravity acceleration (g). This scale
is known as the dimensionless air removal parameter, being a function of the pipeline’s
downward slope (θ) and, in some cases, air volume to be removed (Vair ) (Equation (3)):

V
p = f (θ, Vair ) (3)
gd

Water flow measurements were collected in which an air body of a given length
(formed during the installation filling) was removed in downward slopes of 0◦ , 5◦ , 10◦ ,
15◦ , 20◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ and pipeline diameters of 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4., 31.75, and
38.1 mm. Ten water flow and entrapped air length measurements were collected in each
downward slope and pipeline diameter. Using the average values of the dimensionless air
removal parameter and the pipeline’s downward slope, linear mathematical models were
adjusted and diagnosed.
In order to define the representativeness of the aforementioned obtained models, a
diagnosis of the assumptions regarding the residual’s normality, homoscedasticity, and
independence was made. In the case of the air bubbles’ removal models, the potential math-
ematical models were linearized using logarithms. In the case of the entrapped air removal
due to hydrodynamic thrust models, a one-way ANOVA was utilized to demonstrate
that the downward slope produced a statistically significant effect on the dimensionless
√
air removal parameter (V⁄ gd); and a Tukey’s test was elaborated to integrate different
pipeline diameters within a model [23].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Energy Loss Generated by Entrapped Air
It was observed that the energy loss by entrapped air significantly impacts the optimal
functioning of a water supply system. The energy potentially available in the system
depends on the elevation of the pipeline upstream of the entrapped air. Due to entrapped
air, the available energy of the system decreased, as well as the water transport capacity in
the pipeline. When the energy loss generated by the air was equal to the available energy
of the system, a complete blockage of the water flow was noticed.
Water 2023, 15, 2870 6 of 15

The results of Table 1 pointed out that in 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm
pipeline diameters, the energy loss caused by entrapped air approximates the air’s vertical
height independently of the pipeline’s downward slope. The observed energy loss pre-
sented a difference of ±4% compared to the calculated energy loss. The latter difference is
close to the one reported by May et al. [3] in the 25.4 and 38.1 mm diameters.

Table 1. Energy loss observed and calculated generated by entrapped air.

Energy Loss Generated by

Diameter Downward Entrapped Air Entrapped Air (m) Percentage
(mm) Angle (◦ ) Length (m) Calculated Difference (%)
Observed
(Equation (1))
15 0.830 0.206 0.203 −1.35
30 1.032 0.488 0.495 1.46
12.7
45 0.845 0.489 0.486 −0.71
60 0.910 0.767 0.786 2.07
15 0.930 0.242 0.250 3.04
30 1.070 0.526 0.525 −0.21
15.875
45 0.825 0.545 0.565 3.62
60 0.910 0.711 0.709 −0.27
15 0.860 0.187 0.190 1.73
30 0.910 0.382 0.397 3.72
19.05
45 0.920 0.612 0.628 2.63
60 0.950 0.762 0.787 3.18
15 0.940 0.202 0.207 2.43
30 1.160 0.511 0.510 −0.26
25.4
45 1.075 0.653 0.662 1.42
60 0.955 0.663 0.669 0.96
15 0.800 0.155 0.161 3.97
30 0.855 0.365 0.360 −1.41
31.75
45 0.870 0.490 0.488 −0.42
60 0.875 0.564 0.568 0.74
15 1.040 0.221 0.220 −0.63
30 1.020 0.409 0.417 1.88
38.1
45 1.025 0.417 0.415 −0.54
60 1.010 0.412 0.425 3.00

3.2. Air Bubbles’ Removal Due to Hydraulic Jump Turbulence

It was observed that if the energy available in the system is sufficient, a downward
slope pipeline with at least one entrapped air body operates as a channel. Due to the water
flow, the formation of a hydraulic jump downstream of an air body was observed, which
removed small air bubbles by generation and entrainment [14].
As can be seen in Figures 3–6, the air-water flow ratio (β) regarding the Froude
number presented potential relationships. Similar relationships were found by Kalinske and
Robertson [21], Escarameia [17], and Mortensen [24]. It should be noted that the resulting
potential models are focused on representing the first air removal stage in pressurized
pipelines. Those models are only applicable in the reported air-water ratio intervals (for the
pipeline diameter of 19.05 mm, water flows from 2.2 × 10−5 to 4 × 10−5 m3 /s; for 25.4 mm
from 2.9 × 10−5 to 6.6 × 10−5 m3 /s; for 31.75 mm from 3.3 × 10−5 to 6.6 × 10−5 m3 /s;
for 38.1 mm from 4.4 × 10−5 to 8.4 × 10−5 m3 /s). The authors mentioned the above to
point out that the pipeline slope is a factor that influences, to a lesser degree, air bubbles’
generation and entrainment due to the hydraulic jump turbulence, resulting in a factor that
they do not directly consider in their models.
Water 2023, 15, 2870 7 of 15

In the present study, it was observed that by increasing the pipeline’s downward slope
degree, the air-water flow ratios (β) increased. In other words, greater air volume was
removed under the same water flow.
Figures 3–6 show the dimensionless relationships (β) obtained concerning the Froude
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWnumber (Fr ) in 15◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ downward angles in 19.05 mm, 25.4 mm, 31.7577mm, of 16
of 16
and 38.1 mm pipeline diameters, respectively.
Due to the constant air bubbles’ removal out of the hydraulic jump turbulence, it
was
fromobserved 10−5−5that
2.9 ×× 10 if there
to 6.6
6.6 10−5−5ismanother air body
mmdownstream to the6.6original mair
3/s;body, themmair
×× 10
3/s; for 31.75 from 3.3
3.3 ×× 10
10−5
−5 to
from 2.9 to m 3/s; for 31.75 mm from to 6.6 ×× 10
10−5−5m 3/s; for 38.1
for 38.1 mm
bubbles
from 4.4removed
4.4 ×× 10
10−5 to
−5 will
to 8.4 join
8.4 ×× 10
10−5 mthe
−5 subsequent
m3/s).
3 /s). The
The authorsair body.
authors mentionedAdditionally,
mentioned the the above it
above to was detected
to point
point out that
out that the
that the
the
from
removed
pipeline air wasisevacuated
slope a factor from
that the installation
influences, to a only degree,
lesser if there wasair no downstream
bubbles’ generation profile
and
pipeline slope is a factor that influences, to a lesser degree, air bubbles’ generation and
that favored air
entrainment due bubbles’
to the accumulation
the hydraulic
hydraulic jump and consequently
turbulence, created
resulting in aanother
a factor air
thatbody,
factor that they which
do not
not
entrainment
isdirectly
only removed due to
with the removal jump
velocity turbulence,
[8]. resulting in they do
consider in their
directly consider in their models. models.

Figure3.
Figure
Figure 3.Models
3. Modelsof
Models ofair
of airbubbles
air bubblesremoval
bubbles removalin
removal in19.05
in 19.05mm
19.05 mmpipeline
mm pipelinediameter.
pipeline diameter.
diameter.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Models
Models of
of air
air bubbles’
bubbles’ removal
removal in
in 25.4
25.4 mm
mm pipeline
pipeline diameter.
diameter.
Figure 4. Models of air bubbles’ removal in 25.4 mm pipeline diameter.
Water 2023,15,
Water2023, 15,2870
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 15
16
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Figure 5. Modelsofofair
air bubbles’removal
removal in31.75
31.75 mmpipeline
pipeline diameter.
Figure5.5.Models
Figure Models of airbubbles’
bubbles’ removalin
in 31.75mm
mm pipelinediameter.
diameter.

Figure 6. Models of air bubbles’ removal in 38.1 mm pipeline diameter.

Figure6.6.Models
Figure Modelsof
ofair
airbubbles’
bubbles’removal
removalin
in38.1
38.1mm
mmpipeline
pipelinediameter.
diameter.
In the present study, it was observed that by increasing the pipeline’s downward
In the present
Moreover, it was study, it was
observed observed that by increasing the pipeline’s downward
slope degree, the air-water flowthat as the
ratios pipeline
(β) increased. diameter
In other increased, a greater
words, greater water
air volume
slopewas
flow degree, the air-water
required to cause flow
air ratios (β)
bubbles’ increased.
removal In other
because the words, number
Froude greater air volume
increased,
was removed under the same water flow.
wasthe
and removed
water-airunder
flowthe same
ratio water flow.
decreased (Figure 7). Also, it was detected that in water flows
Figures 3–6 show the dimensionless relationships (β) obtained concerning the Froude
higherFigures 3–6 show
than those the dimensionless
reported in this study, the relationships
water and air (β) flow
obtained concerning
varied the Froude
rapidly because the
number (𝐹 ) in 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60° downward angles in 19.05 mm, 25.4 mm, 31.75 mm,
number (𝐹
available ) in 15°,
energy 30°,system
in the 45°, and 60° downward
increased angles indue
and decreased 19.05 mm,air
to the 25.4 mm, 31.75
bubbles’ mm,
removal
and 38.1 mm pipeline diameters, respectively.
and
andreturn
38.1 mm to the hydraulic
pipeline jump turbulent
diameters, respectively.zone. Hence, the highest air-water flow ratio
Due to the constant air bubbles’ removal out of the hydraulic jump turbulence, it was
depicted
Duethe threshold
to the constant towards transient
air bubbles’ flow out
removal in each downward
of the hydraulicslope.
jump turbulence, it was
observed that if there is another air body downstream to the original air body, the air
In thethat
observed caseifofthere
horizontal pipelines,
is another air bubbles’
air body downstreamgeneration
to the was not observed
original air body, due to
the air
bubbles removed will join the subsequent air body. Additionally, it was detected that the
the turbulence of the hydraulic jump; this phenomenon occurred just in
bubbles removed will join the subsequent air body. Additionally, it was detected that the downward slope
removed air was evacuated from the installation only if there was no downstream profile
pipelines
removed[8,25].
air was evacuated from the installation only if there was no downstream profile
that favored air bubbles’ accumulation and consequently created another air body, which
that favored air bubbles’ accumulation and consequently created another air body, which
is only removed with the removal velocity [8].
is only removed with the removal velocity [8].
Moreover, it was observed that as the pipeline diameter increased, a greater water
Moreover, it was observed that as the pipeline diameter increased, a greater water
flow was required to cause air bubbles’ removal because the Froude number increased,
flow was required to cause air bubbles’ removal because the Froude number increased,
 and the water-air flow ratio decreased (Figure 7). Also, it was detected that in water flows
higher than those reported in this study, the water and air flow varied rapidly because the
Water 2023, 15, 2870 available energy in the system increased and decreased due to the air bubbles’ removal 9 of 15
and return to the hydraulic jump turbulent zone. Hence, the highest air-water flow ratio
depicted the threshold towards transient flow in each downward slope.

Figure7.
Figure 7. Models
Models overview
overview of
of air
air bubbles’
bubbles’removal
removalininsmall
smalldiameter
diameterpipelines.
pipelines.

In the case of
Mortensen et horizontal pipelines,
al. [24] indicated thatair air
bubbles’
releasegeneration was notofobserved
is independent the pipedue sizetoin
the turbulence of the hydraulic jump; this phenomenon occurred
diameters of 76.2, 177, 300, and 591 mm with a constant downward slope of 4% if the just in downward slope
pipelines jump
hydraulic [8,25].is within the pipeline. However, the latter results are comprehensible since
Zukoski Mortensen
[26] stated et al.that
[24]viscosity
indicatedand thatsurface
air release is independent
tension of the pipe in
effects are minuscule size in di-
pipelines
ameters
equal of greater
to or 76.2, 177, 300,
than and
175 mm. 591Atmm thewith
samea time,
constant downward
Pothof and Clemensslope[22]of 4% if the hy-
indicated that
draulic jump is within the pipeline. However, the latter results are comprehensible
the critical velocity of moving an air body is not affected by surface tension in the pipeline’s since
Zukoski [26]
diameters stated
greater that200
than viscosity and surface
mm. Similarly, Bainestension effects are [27]
and Wilkinson minuscule
describedin pipelines
consistent
equal to or greater
results in rectangular ducts.than 175 mm. At the same time, Pothof and Clemens [22] indicated that
the critical velocity of moving an air body is not affected by
Unlike the models reported by Kalinske and Robertson [21], Escarameia [17], andsurface tension in the pipe-
line’s diameters
Mortensen [24], ingreater than 200
this study it wasmm. Similarly,
found Baines
that the and Wilkinson
downward angle is[27] described con-
an important factor
sistent results in rectangular ducts.
to consider in the configuration of mathematical models for air bubbles’ removal in small
Unlike
diameters (seethe models
θ in Figurereported
2). Thereby is aKalinske
dependency and between
Robertson air[21], Escarameia
bubbles’ removal[17], and
regarding
Mortensen
the pipeline’s [24], in this study
downward slopeit was
andfound that thediameter.
the system’s downward Theangle
scale is effects
an important factor
on air bubbles’
to consider in the configuration of mathematical models for air
removal are relevant in small diameters, likely by viscosity and surface tension [22,26].bubbles’ removal in small
diameters (see θ in Figure 2). There is a dependency between air bubbles’
The comparative graph in Figure 8 shows the differences in the behavior of air bubble removal regard-
ing the pipeline’s
removal models in downward slope and It
circular pipelines. the system’s the
considers diameter.
proposedThe models
scale effects on air bub-
by Kalinske and
bles’ removal are relevant in small diameters, likely by viscosity
Robertson [21], Escarameia [17], and one obtained in this study, particularly for a downward and surface tension
(22,26).
slope of 60◦ in a 19.05 mm pipeline diameter. The model obtained by Mortensen et al. [24]
The comparative graph
greatly overestimates in Figure
the models of 8Kalinske
shows the differences
and Robertson in the
[21],behavior
Escarameia of air [17],
bubbleand
removal models in circular pipelines. It considers the proposed
those developed in this research; for that reason, it is not included in Figure 8. models by Kalinske and
Robertson [21], Escarameia [17], and one obtained in this study, particularly for a down-
It is observed that the models of Kalinske and Robertson [21] and Escarameia [17] have
ward slope of 60° in a 19.05 mm pipeline diameter. The model obtained by Mortensen et
a similar potential trend regarding one of the models defined in this study. However, the
al. [24] greatly overestimates the models of Kalinske and Robertson [21], Escarameia [17],
differences among those relationships can be explained due to the mentioned models which
and those developed in this research; for that reason, it is not included in Figure 8.
were developed in different scales compared to the ones obtained in the present research.
Since the potential relation of 19.05 mm pipeline diameter is located under Kalinske and
Robertson [21] and Escarameia’s [17] models (Figure 8), the remaining models obtained
(regarding 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm) are under the aforementioned models.
Water
Water2023, 15,15,2870
2023, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 16
10 of of 15

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Comparison
Comparison of
of aa model
modelobtained
obtainedwith
withrespect
respecttotoproposed
proposedmodels
modelsinin
airair
bubbles’ removal
bubbles’ removal
due to
due to aa hydraulic
hydraulic jump
jump [17,21].
[17,21].

It is observed
3.3. Entrapped that theDue
Air Removal models of Kalinske Thrust
to Hydrodynamic and Robertson [21] and Escarameia [17]
haveThe
a similar potential
results trend regarding
of entrapped air removal onedueof the
to models
the effect defined in this study. However,
of a hydrodynamic thrust are
summarized in Table 2, related to 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mmmodels
the differences among those relationships can be explained due to the mentioned pipeline
which were
diameters developed
and downward in different
slopes of scales
0◦ , 5◦ ,compared to◦ ,the
10◦ , 15◦ , 20 30◦ones
, 45◦ ,obtained
and 60◦ . in the present
research. Since the potential relation of 19.05 mm pipeline diameter is located under Ka-
linske2.and
Table Robertson
Averages of the [21] and Escarameia’s
dimensionless air removal [17]parameter
models (Figure 8), the remaining
in the entrapped models
air removal due to a
obtained (regarding
hydrodynamic thrust. 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm) are under the aforementioned models.

3.3. Entrapped Air Removal Due to Hydrodynamic

InnerThrust
Diameter (mm)
Downward
The (results
Angle ◦) of 12.7 15.875
entrapped air 19.05
removal due 25.4
to the effect 31.75
of a hydrodynamic 38.1are
pthrust
Average of the Dimensionless Air Removal Parameter (V/ gd)
summarized in Table 2, related to 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm pipeline
0 and downward
diameters 0.3847 slopes
0.3828 0.3896
of 0°, 5°, 10°, 0.4879
15°, 20°, 30°, 0.4857
45°, and 60°. 0.4826
5 0.4607 0.4673 0.4585 0.5919 0.6056 0.6053
10Averages of0.5010
Table 2. 0.4903air removal
the dimensionless 0.4951
parameter 0.6476 0.6498
in the entrapped air removal0.6448
due to
15
a hydrodynamic 0.5233
thrust. 0.5185 0.5113 0.6942 0.6887 0.6911
20 0.5368 0.5390 0.5397 0.7120 0.7240 0.7186
30 0.5725 0.5787 Inner Diameter
0.5689 (mm) 0.7674
0.7816 0.7703
Downward
45 Angle 0.6106 12.7 0.6030
15.875 0.6071 19.05 0.8247
25.4 0.8254
31.75 0.8250
38.1
60 (°) 0.6307 0.6337 0.6428 0.8682 0.8500 0.8600
Average of the Dimensionless Air Removal Parameter (𝐕⁄ 𝐠𝐝)
0 0.3847 0.3828 0.3896 0.4879 √0.4857 0.4826
It was5found that the dimensionless
0.4607 0.4673air removal
0.4585 parameter gd) is closely
0.5919 (V⁄ 0.6056 linked to
0.6053
the pipeline’s
10 downward slope.
0.5010 The greater
0.4903 the downward
0.4951 angle,
0.6476 the greater
0.6498 the removal
0.6448
velocity required
15 to remove
0.5233entrapped air
0.5185 bodies by
0.5113 the hydrodynamic
0.6942 thrust
0.6887 action.
0.6911 The
similarity20
in the average0.5368
values of the dimensionless
0.5390 0.5397 air removal
0.7120 parameter
0.7240 was observed
0.7186
for 12.7, 15.875,
30 and 19.05 mm
0.5725 and 25.4,
0.5787 31.75, and 38.1
0.5689 mm pipeline
0.7816 diameters
0.7674 0.7703 2).
(Table
The results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated that the downward slope pro-
45 0.6106 0.6030 0.6071 0.8247 0.8254 0.8250
duces a statistically significant effect on the dimensionless air removal parameter (Table 3).
60 0.6307 0.6337 0.6428 0.8682 0.8500 0.8600

It was found that the dimensionless air removal parameter (𝑉⁄√𝑔𝑑) is closely linked
to the pipeline’s downward slope. The greater the downward angle, the greater the
Water 2023, 15, 2870 11 of 15

Table 3. One-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05).

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sum

F-Ratio p-Value
Variation Squares Freedom of Squares
Between groups 0.3599 5 0.0720 6.652 1.209 × 10−4
Within groups 0.4544 42 0.0108
Total 0.8142 47 0.0173

Moreover, Tukey’s test corroborated the similarity in the average dimensionless air
removal parameter values between diameter group 1 (12.7, 15.875, and 19.05 mm) and 2
(25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm) (Table 4). Consequently, the behaviors of these groups were
represented with independent linear mathematical models (Figure 9).

Table 4. Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).

Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Absolute Difference Difference between

Q-Stat p-Value
(mm) (mm) in Averages Diameters
12.7 15.875 8.7 × 10−4 0.024 1.000 No
12.7 19.05 9.1 × 10−4 0.025 1.000 No
12.7 25.4 0.1735 4.718 0.021 Yes
12.7 31.75 0.1720 4.678 0.022 Yes
12.7 38.1 0.1722 4.682 0.022 Yes
15.875 19.05 4.0 × 10−5 0.001 1.000 No
15.875 25.4 0.1744 4.741 0.020 Yes
15.875 31.75 0.1729 4.702 0.021 Yes
15.875 38.1 0.1731 4.706 0.021 Yes
19.05 25.4 0.1744 4.742 0.020 Yes
19.05 31.75 0.1729 4.703 0.021 Yes
19.05 38.1 0.1731 4.707 0.021 Yes
25.4 31.75 1.4 × 10−3 0.039 1.000 No
25.4 38.1 1.3 × 10−3 0.035 1.000 No
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
31.75 38.1 1.4 × 10−4 0.004 1.000 No

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Models’
Models’overview
overviewof of
entrapped air removal
entrapped due to
air removal duea hydrodynamic thrust in
to a hydrodynamic smallinpipe-
thrust small
line diameters.
pipeline diameters.

On the one hand, Gandenberger [13] and Escarameia [17] considered the air volume
to be removed as a parameter to obtain the dimensionless air removal parameter. On the
other hand, May et al. [3] pointed out that the air removal velocity is independent of the
air body length; consequently, entrapped air volume was not considered in their models.
Water 2023, 15, 2870 12 of 15

On the one hand, Gandenberger [13] and Escarameia [17] considered the air volume
to be removed as a parameter to obtain the dimensionless air removal parameter. On the
other hand, May et al. [3] pointed out that the air removal velocity is independent of the
air body length; consequently, entrapped air volume was not considered in their models.
In the present study, low variation in the removal water flow was observed regarding the
air pockets length; therefore, the air volume removed was not integrated into the obtained
mathematical models.
It should be noted that the air removal phenomenon due to the hydrodynamic thrust
action was found in transient flow conditions, so the removal flow occurs in a short time
interval. It was observed that as the pipeline’s downward angle was higher, the air removal
was more turbulent, generating overpressures and vibrations on the conduction line. The
aforementioned overpressures were not measured.
Two mathematical models were adjusted and diagnosed to represent the dimensionless
air removal parameter as a function of the square root of the sine downward angle. Using
these models, it is possible to determine the required water velocity to remove entrapped
air bodies in small pipeline diameters (formed while filling) by the hydrodynamic thrust
action in downward angles between 0◦ and 60◦ . The models’ experimental components
consider the surface tension and water viscosity effects indirectly.
Finally, Figure 10 shows a graph summarizing several mathematical models proposed
in the specialized literature and two found in this study for diameter groups 1 and 2
(gray and black solid lines). Most air removal models are calibrated for pipelines with
diameters greater than 0.0762 m, which are not applicable for smaller pipeline diameters.
The smallest diameter reported corresponds to 0.0254 m [3]. The large spread in the reported
correlations is partially produced by scale effects as reported in Pothof and Clemens [28]. It
is observed that the models obtained in this study are in the same range as the previously
developed models.
Regarding the model’s diagnosis, both air bubbles’ removal due to hydraulic jump
turbulence and entrapped air removal due to hydrodynamic thrust models have good
representativeness of the studied phenomena since the correlation coefficients (R2 ) are
equal to or greater than 0.97. Also, the model’s residuals are normally distributed, present
constant variance (homoscedasticity), and independent. Focusing only on small diameters
reduces the models’ uncertainty.
Water 2023,
Water 2023, 15,
15, 2870
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1313of
of 16
15

Figure 10. Comparison of the air removal models obtained with respect to models proposed in the
Figure 10. Comparison of the air removal models obtained with respect to models proposed in the
literature [3,5,8,10–17,25,29–31].
literature [3,5,8,10–17,25,29–31].
Regarding the model’s diagnosis, both air bubbles’ removal due to hydraulic jump
4. Conclusions
turbulence and entrapped air removal due to hydrodynamic thrust models have good
It was corroborated that the energy loss caused by an air body is approximately
representativeness of the studied phenomena since the correlation coefficients (R2) are
equivalent to its height by applying the energy equation between the air body at the
equal to or greater than 0.97. Also, the model’s residuals are normally distributed, present
beginning and end in 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm pipeline diameters,
constant
presentingvariance (homoscedasticity),
differences of approximatelyand
±independent.
4%. Focusing only on small diameters
reduces the models’ uncertainty.
It was found that the air bubbles’ removal due to the hydraulic jump turbulence is
sensitive to the pipeline’s downward angle. Models were determined for each downward
4. Conclusions
angle and diameter. Due to scale issues (small pipeline diameters), the defined models
wereItbelow
was corroborated
those reportedthat theliterature.
in the energy loss caused by an air body is approximately
equivalent to its height by applying
The water velocity at which air bodiesthe energy
were equation
removed between the air body at
by the hydrodynamic the
thrust
beginning and end in 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 25.4, 31.75, and 38.1 mm pipeline diameters,
action in downward slopes was identified. The linear mathematical models integrated the
presenting differences
water velocity’s removalof into
approximately ±4%. air removal parameter.
the dimensionless
 It was found that the air bubbles’ removal due to the hydraulic jump turbulence is
sensitive to the pipeline’s downward angle. Models were determined for each downward
angle and diameter. Due to scale issues (small pipeline diameters), the defined models
Water 2023, 15, 2870 were below those reported in the literature. 14 of 15
The water velocity at which air bodies were removed by the hydrodynamic thrust
action in downward slopes was identified. The linear mathematical models integrated the
water velocity’s
Two removal into the
linear mathematical dimensionless
models were obtainedair removal parameter.
for air removal by the hydrodynamic
linear mathematical models were ◦obtained◦
thrust action in downward angles from 0 to 60 . One represents by
Two for air removal the15.875,
12.7, hydrodynamic
and 19.05
thrust
mm action inand
diameters, downward
the otherangles from 0°
25.4, 31.75, andto 38.1
60°. mm.
One represents 12.7, 15.875, and 19.05
mm This
diameters,
study and the other
extends 25.4, 31.75, andthe
and complements 38.1existing
mm. ones since small diameters were
This lower
analyzed, study than
extends andgenerally
those complements the in
reported existing ones sinceliterature.
the specialized small diameters were
analyzed, lower than those generally reported in the specialized literature.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.Q.-M., J.V.P.-H., J.M.-V. and J.R.Q.-M.; methodology,
Author Contributions:
E.Q.-M., Conceptualization,
J.V.P.-H. and J.M.-V.; E.Q.-M.,
validation, E.Q.-M. andJ.V.P.-H.,
J.V.P.-H.;J.M.-V.
formal and J.R.Q.-M.;
analysis, methodology,
E.Q.-M., J.V.P.-H. and
E.Q.-M.,
J.M.-V.; J.V.P.-H. andE.Q.-M.,
investigation, J.M.-V.;J.V.P.-H.
validation,
andE.Q.-M.
J.M.-V.;and J.V.P.-H.;
resources, formal
E.Q.-M. andanalysis, E.Q.-M.,
J.V.P.-H.; J.V.P.-H.
writing—original
and J.M.-V.; investigation, E.Q.-M., J.V.P.-H. and J.M.-V.; resources, E.Q.-M. and J.V.P.-H.;
draft preparation, E.Q.-M., J.V.P.-H. and J.M.-V.; writing—review and editing, E.Q.-M., J.V.P.-H., writing—
originaland
J.M.-V. draft preparation,
J.R.Q.-M.; E.Q.-M.,E.Q.-M.
supervision, J.V.P.-H.and
andJ.V.P.-H.
J.M.-V.; All
writing—review and editing,
authors have read and agreedE.Q.-M.,
to the
J.V.P.-H., J.M.-V. and J.R.Q.-M.;
published version of the manuscript.supervision, E.Q.-M. and J.V.P.-H. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Chapingo Autonomous University (UACh).
Funding: This research was funded by the Chapingo Autonomous University (UACh).
Data Availability Statement: Data of this study are available upon request to the corresponding
Data Availability Statement: Data of this study are available upon request to the corresponding
author.
author.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the University of Lleida’s support at the beginning
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the University of Lleida’s support at the beginning
of
ofthis
thisresearch
researchproject.
project.
Conflicts
Conflictsof Interest: The
of Interest: authors declare
The authors declare no
no conflict
conflictof
ofinterest.
interest.

Appendix
Appendix A
A

FigureA1.
Figure A1. Experimental
Experimental setup.
setup.

References
1. Ramezani, L.; Karney, B.; Malekpour, A. Encouraging effective air management in water pipelines: A critical review. J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016055. [CrossRef]
2. Stephenson, D. Effects of air valves and pipework on water hammer pressures. J. Transp. Eng. 1997, 123, 101–106. [CrossRef]
3. May, D.; Allen, J.; Nelson, D. Hydraulic investigation of air in small diameter pipes. Int. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2018, 7, 51–57. Available
online: http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijhe.20180703.02.html (accessed on 10 October 2022).
4. Dean, J.A. Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
5. Pozos, O.; Gonzalez, C.A.; Giesecke, J.; Marx, W.; Rodal, E.A. Air entrapped in gravity pipeline systems. J. Hydraul. Res. 2010, 48,
338–347. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2870 15 of 15

6. Colgate, D. Hydraulic Model Studies of the Flow Characteristics and Air Entrainment in the Check Towers of the Main Aqueduct, Canadian
River Project Texas; Report Hyd-555; U.S. Dept. of the Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 1966.
7. Ochoa, L.H. Modelación de aire atrapado en flujo de agua en conductos (Modeling Entrapped Air in Water Flow in Pipelines).
Ph.D. Thesis, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, 2005.
8. Corcos, G. Air in Water Pipes: A Manual for Designers of Spring Supplied Gravity-Driven Drinking Water Rural Delivery Systems, 2nd
ed.; Agua Para La Vida: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003.
9. Fuertes-Miquel, V.S.; Coronado-Hernández, O.E.; Mora-Meliá, D.; Iglesias-Rey, P.L. Hydraulic modeling during filling and
emptying processes in pressurized pipelines: A literature review. Urban Water J. 2019, 16, 299–311. [CrossRef]
10. Liou, C.P.; Hunt, W.A. Filling of pipelines with undulating elevation profiles. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1996, 122, 534–539. [CrossRef]
11. Kalinske, A.A.; Bliss, P.H. Removal of air from pipelines by flowing water. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1943, 13, 480–482.
12. Kent, J.C. The Entrainment of Air by Water Flowing in Circular Conduits with Downgrade Slopes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1952.
13. Gandenberger, W. Über die wirtschaftliche und betriebssichere Gestaltung von Fernwasserleitungen (Design of Overland Water Supply
Pipelines for Economy and Operational Reliability); R. Oldenbourg: Munich, Germany, 1957.
14. Wisner, P.E.; Mohsen, F.N.; Kouwen, N. Removal of air from water lines by hydraulic means. J. Hydraul. Div. ACSE 1975, 101,
243–257. [CrossRef]
15. Falvey, H.T. Air-Water Flow in Hydraulic Structures; Engineering Monograph 41; United States Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 1980.
16. Walski, T.M.; Barnhart, T.S.; Driscoll, J.M.; Yencha, R.M. Hydraulics of corrosive gas pockets in force mains. Water Environ. Res.
1994, 66, 772–778. [CrossRef]
17. Escarameia, M. Investigating hydraulic removal of air from water pipelines. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag. 2007, 160, 25–34.
[CrossRef]
18. Lauchlan, C.S.; Escarameia, M.; May, R.W.P.; Burrows, R.; Gahan, C. Air in Pipelines: A Literature Review; Report SR 649; HR
Wallingford: Oxfordshire, UK, 2005.
19. Lima-Neto, I.E.; de Melo-Porto, R. Performance of low-cost ejectors. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2004, 130, 122–128. [CrossRef]
20. Lindell, J.E.; Moore, W.P.; King, H.W. Handbook of Hydraulics, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
21. Kalinske, A.A.; Robertson, J.M. Closed Conduit Flow. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1943, 108, 1435–1447. [CrossRef]
22. Pothof, I.; Clemens, F. On elongated air pockets in downward sloping pipes. J. Hydraul. Res. 2010, 48, 499–503. [CrossRef]
23. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
24. Mortensen, J.D.; Barfuss, S.L.; Johnson, M.C. Scale effects of air entrained by hydraulic jumps within closed conduits. J. Hydraul.
Res. 2011, 49, 90–95. [CrossRef]
25. Benjamin, T.B. Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 1968, 31, 209–248. [CrossRef]
26. Zukoski, E. Influence of viscosity, surface tension and inclination on motion of long bubbles in closed tubes. J. Fluid Mech. 1966,
25, 821–837. [CrossRef]
27. Baines, W.D.; Wilkinson, D.L. The motion of large air bubbles in ducts of moderate slope. J. Hydraul. Res. 1986, 25, 157–170.
[CrossRef]
28. Pothof, I.W.M.; Clemens, F.H.L.R. Experimental study of air-water flow in downward sloping pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2011, 37,
278–292. [CrossRef]
29. Mosvell, G. Luft i Utslippsledninger (Air at Outfalls); Project Committee on Sewage, PRA Report 8; Norwegian Water Institute:
Oslo, Norway, 1976.
30. Townson, J.M. Free-Surface Hydraulics; Unwin Hyman: London, UK, 1991.
31. Veronese, A. Sul Motto delle Bolle D’aria nelle Condotte D’acqua (On the Motto of Air Bubbles in the Water Pipeline); Estrato dal
Fasciacolo X: Roma, Italy, 1937; Volume XIV, p. XV.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.