HYDRAULIC FEATURES OF THE DISSIPATION CHAMBER

FOR VORTEX DROP SHAFTS

Giuseppe Del Giudice(1), Corrado Gisonni(2), Giacomo Rasulo(1)
(1)

Department of Hydraulic, Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering,

Universit di Napoli Federico II, via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy; e-mail:
delgiudi@unina.it
(2)
Department of Civil Engineering, Seconda Universit di Napoli, via Roma 29,
81031 Aversa, Italy; e-mail: corrado.gisonni@unina2.it
ABSTRACT
Drop structures are often necessary to connect shallow to deep sewers in steep areas.
Vortex drop shafts were originally introduced by Drioli (1947) as an overflow
structure for dams; actually these structures are widely used within sewer systems.
Given the complexity of the flow features, the hydraulic behaviour of vortex shafts
has been mostly studied experimentally. General design criteria have been issued,
mainly for the intake structure and the vertical shaft. Few experimental data are
available for the outlet structure, essentially referred to specific case studies.
Preliminary experiments investigated various types of dissipation chambers, aiming
to characterize the energy dissipation mechanism of the outlet structure. The present
study presents further results of the experimental campaign conducted at the
Hydraulics Laboratory of the University of Naples Federico II, mainly focusing on
the optimum location of constriction elements to be placed within the outlet
structure.
Keywords: Drop structure; Energy dissipation; Sewer hydraulics; Urban drainage;
Vortex shaft
1 INTRODUCTION
Urban safety is vitally dependent on the correct operation of the sewer system, in
order to prevent flooding of densely populated areas. During the last decades the
efficiency of existing sewer systems has often been affected by a combination of
factors such as urban growth, continuing increase of impervious surfaces, structural
aging, and improper design of sewer appurtenances, rather than climate changes.
Flood protection of urban centers located in hilly regions is particularly difficult
because of two peculiar issues: (i) to intercept flood runoff originated from natural
catchments upstream of the urban areas, and (ii) to convey large discharges through
steep slopes. Therefore, the hydraulic design of appropriate drop structures is crucial
to divert the storm-water flows toward the downhill sewer mains.
Actually, vortex drop shafts, firstly introduced by Drioli (1947) as an overflow
structure for dams, are widely used in sewer systems to connect sewer mains
characterized by large elevation gaps. A vortex drop shaft is essentially constituted
by three main parts: (i) intake structure, (ii) vertical shaft, and (iii) outlet structure. In
addition, a sufficient air circulation has to be provided to prevent chocking

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

c 2009 by International Association of Hydraulic Engineering & Research (IAHR)
Copyright
ISBN: 978-94-90365-01-1

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

phenomena and cavitation damage.

Figure 1. Definition sketch of the vortex drop shaft.

The flow across a vortex drop structure is rather complex, because of typical three
dimensional features and occurrence of two-phase flow due to air-water mixture.
Consequently, the hydraulic behaviour of vortex drop shafts has been mostly studied
experimentally through physical models. General design criteria are currently
available, but these are essentially focused on the intake structure and the vertical
shaft.
The most common shapes of the intake structure are screw (Drioli, 1947), spiral
(Kellenberger, 1988) or tangential (Jain and Kennedy, 1983). The selection of the
intake geometry is essentially dependent on the hydraulic features of the approach
flow, such as the Froude number; design guideline are available for the screw and
spiral intake (Vischer and Hager, 1995; ATV, 1998), and recently also for the
tangential intake (Yu and Lee, 2009).
The main hydraulic features of air and water flow through the shaft are outlined by
(Hager, 1999), also providing useful design recommendations.
Certainly, the outlet structure is the critical item in terms of lack of knowledge; few
experimental data are available, essentially referred to specific case studies, so that
its geometry is generally box-shaped and its design criteria are generally based on the
overall features of existing vortex drops (Kellenberger, 1988; Hager, 1999). Balah
and Bramley (1989) proposed a so called reverse-vortex outlet structure, essentially
recommended for low and medium-head drop shafts. The proposed geometry of the
outlet structure is as complex as the intake structure, and a baffle ring is added to
improve the hydraulic performance in terms of energy dissipation. Based on their
experimental results, the authors suggested some design criteria for this particular
structure, whose application is definitely less frequent, as compared to the typical
box-shaped outlet structure, probably because of costly construction.
Since few years, a systematic experimental campaign on vortex drop shafts is in
progress at the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Department of Hydraulic Geotechnical
and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, also aiming to
revive a classical topic that was traditionally studied by Neapolitan hydraulicians
(Pica, 1970; Viparelli, 1950).
2717

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

In the following a comprehensive resume of previous studies in presented, along with

the latest experimental results, aiming to provide practical issues for the hydraulic
design of the outlet structure in vortex drop shafts.
2 PREVIOUS RESULTS
Some preliminary experimental results have been recently presented by Del Giudice
et al. (2008). The experimental set-up, made of Plexiglas, consisted of the following
elements, starting from upstream: an approach flow channel 0.14 m wide and 5 m
long, a Drioli-type vortex intake, a vertical shaft 1.75 m long with a diameter equal
to 0.10 m, a parallelepiped outlet structure 0.17 m wide, 0.50 m high, and 0.70 m
long, and a tailwater channel 0.17 m wide, 0.20 m high, and 3.00 m long, with a
slope equal to 0.001 m/m. The outlet section of the tailwater channel was equipped
with a vertical gate to control the downstream flow depth.
The main hydraulic features were measured and recorded for each run, mainly
consisting in flow depths and the location of flow singularities such as hydraulic
jumps or shock waves.
Basically, four different configurations were considered for the outlet structure,
according to Figure 2:
 Type I: Basic configuration, without any special appurtenance
installed in the chamber, and flat bottom.
 Type II: Inclusion of a bottom bend at the beginning of the chamber
(detail 1 in Fig. 2) whose radius of curvature is equal to Ds.
 Type III: A configuration similar to Type I, with the addition of a
control section constituted by a contraction (detail 2 in Fig 2), whose
width was roughly half the chamber width.
 Type IV: the configuration is similar to Type II, with the addition of a
control section (detail 2 in Fig 2), as already considered for Type III.

Figure 2. Scheme of the tested outlet structure: a) streamwise, and b) transverse

section, including (1) bottom bend and (2) the control section (adapted from Vischer
and Hager, 1995).
The hydraulic features of these four configurations were investigated to compare the
various designs in terms of (i) energy dissipation induced by the outlet structure, and
2718

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

(ii) free surface oscillations of the flow directed toward the downstream tunnel.
In addition, three different operating conditions were specifically considered:
 unsubmerged tailwater channel, with a supercritical flow developing
downstream of the outlet structure;
 submerged tailwater channel, inducing subcritical flow with a hydraulic jump
ending at the outlet section;
 submerged outlet structure, with the annular vertical jet impinging on a water
cushion, whose height was larger than 0.9 Du.
The experimental results confirmed that the vortex drop shafts is generally able to
induce a significant energy dissipation rate Et/Eo, roughly equal to 90% (Zhao et al.,
2006), with a better performance as compared to plunging-type drop structures; here
with Et is the total head loss across the drop structures and Eo is the total energy
head at the inlet section of the vortex intake.
In particular, the analysis of the experimental data showed that the Type III outlet
structure provides larger values of Et/Eo as compared to the others, ranging from 92
to 94%, and from 90 to 92%, for supercritical and subcritical tailwater flow,
respectively. Furthermore, the constriction elements installed for type III revealed
also a positive effect in terms of flow regularization toward the tailwater channel.
Generally, it was concluded that: (i) the option Type III is recommended, and (ii)
further investigation was needed on the best location of the constriction elements
within the outlet structure. This task is described in the following part of the present
paper.
3. EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN
The physical model was the same as described in the previous paragraph, with the
exception of the constriction elements added to the outlet structure. Constriction
elements were made out of Plexiglas and circular arc-shaped, in order to prevent
abrupt flow contractions and singularities. The width bc of the contracted section was
set equal to 0.077 m, thus giving a contraction ratio bc/Bt roughly equal to 0.45;
preliminary tests showed that larger values of bc would provoke minor effects on the
flow, whereas smaller values may provoke strong submergence and, in practice,
possible obstruction due to debris conveyed from upstream.
Typically, the minimum distance between the constriction element and the shaft axis
should be at least equal to 1.5Ds (Hager, 1999). Four different locations were tested,
by varying the distance of the contraction elements xc, measured respect to the drop
shaft axis. Thus, the relative distance Xc = xc/DM varied from 0.7 up to 3.4, with DM
as the larger size among the shaft diameter Ds and the tailwater channel diameter Du.
Five discharges Q were considered from 9 to 15 l/s (maximum intake capacity), with
a step equal to 1.5 l/s, so that the dimensionless discharge Q* = Q/(gHd5) varied
approximately between 0.0007 and 0.0012, with g as the gravitational acceleration,
and Hd the drop height.
The main hydraulic features were measured and recorded for each run, mainly
consisting in flow depths and the location of flow singularities such as hydraulic
jumps or shock waves. The essential features of the experimental runs are
summarized in Table 1.
According to the previous experimental campaign, three different downstream
2719

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

conditions were considered: supercritical tailwater flow (no backwater effect),

subcritical tailwater flow (moderate backwater effect), and submerged outlet
structure (severe backwater effect). The downstream flow depth, and consequently
the backwater effect, were controlled through a vertical gate installed at the outlet
section of the tailwater channel.
The photographs in Figure 3 show the typical flow configurations corresponding to
the three abovementioned downstream conditions, for the experimental runs of series
I (e.g. Xc=3.4) with Q = 12 l/s (e.g. Q*0.001).
Table 1. Resume of test conditions

a)

Series

xc
(m)

Q
(l/s)

0.69

9 to 15

II

0.53

9 to 15

III

0.39

9 to 15

IV

0.14

9 to 15

Tailwater Condition
supercritical
moderate backwater
severe backwater
supercritical
moderate backwater
severe backwater
supercritical
moderate backwater
severe backwater
supercritical
moderate backwater
severe backwater

b)

c)
Figure 3. Side view of flow conditions for series I, with Q*0.001 (the
shadowed area represents the contraction elements): a) supercritical tailwater flow;
b) subcritical tailwater flow; and c) submerged outlet structure.
2720

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

From the analysis of Figure 3, it is possible to highlight the following details:

 When supercritical tailwater flow is guaranteed across the outlet structure
(Fig. 3a) the vertical jet impinges on the structure bottom and changes
abruptly its direction from vertical to horizontal; a significant increase of the
flow depth is noticed across the contracted section where a remarkable swell
is formed.
 A moderate backwater effect (Fig. 3b) induces a significant increase of the
downstream specific force (sum of static and dynamic momentum), thus
provoking a hydraulic jump upstream of the contracted section. The jump
length may extend upstream, up to the initial section of the outlet structure, so
that the supercritical sequent depth may be hardly visible.
 A severe backwater effect (Fig. 3c) provokes the complete submergence of
the hydraulic jump, thus forming a deep water cushion. The overall flow
features recall a plunge pool structure.
3. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The dimensionless energy dissipation E/Eo was computed for various conditions,
depending on the contraction relative distance Xc, the dimensionless discharge Q*,
and the tailwater condition; here E=Eo Ec is the head loss, with Eo and Ec as the
total energy head at the outlet section of the approach flow channel (e.g. upstream of
the vortex intake), and the mid section of the contraction, respectively. Therefore, the
head loss at the tailwater channel inlet is missing, as compared to the whole head loss
Et, previously considered.
According to the measured values, the head loss E includes the energy dissipation
terms at the following structures: (i) vortex intake, (ii) drop shaft, (iii) outlet
structure. While the first two terms are not influenced by the downstream condition,
and are constant for a given discharge Q, the energy dissipation due to the outlet
structure is definitely constrained by the flow condition at the contracted section. In
fact, the energy dissipation mechanism may be different, depending on either the
vertical jet impacts directly on an almost dry bottom, or it impinges on a water
cushion; these are the two extremes observed for supercritical tailwater flow and
submerged outlet structure condition, respectively.
The analysis of the experimental results is shown in Figure 4, from which the
following considerations can be made:
1) The energy dissipation efficiency E/Eo decreases almost linearly with the
discharge Q*, and is generally larger than 85%.
2) The position of the contracted section does not affect significantly the energy
dissipation efficiency; the difference is definitely negligible for supercritical
tailwater flow (Fig. 4a) and subcritical tailwater flow (Fig. 4b) configurations,
while slightly larger differences may be noted for the severe backwater
condition (Fig. 4c).
3) The energy dissipation efficiency of both supercritical tailwater flow (Fig. 4a)
and subcritical tailwater flow (Fig. 4b) configurations is larger than the
submerged outlet structure case. This may be due to the presence of the water
cushion which induces a smaller energy dissipation, as compared to the jet

2721

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

impacting directly on the bottom of the outlet structure.

Furthermore, the analysis of the water surface profiles along the outlet structure
showed that the maximum flow depth was never larger than 1.5 DM for all the runs of
the test series.
1.00

1.00

Xc

E/E o
0.95

Xc

E/E o

3.4
2.6
1.9
0.7

3.4
2.6
1.9
0.7

0.95

0.90

0.90

Q*

a)

0.85
0.0006

0.001

Q*

0.0014

b)

0.85
0.0006

0.001

0.0014

1.00

Xc

E/E o

3.4
2.6
1.9
0.7

0.95

0.90

Q*
0.85
0.0006

0.001
0.0014
c)
Figure 4. Dimensionless energy dissipation E/Eo for series I to IV as a function
of Q*: a) supercritical tailwater flow; b) subcritical tailwater flow; and c) submerged
outlet structure.

4 CONCLUSIONS
Experimental results on the outlet structure of a vortex drop shaft are presented. The
study mainly focused on the effect of special appurtenances to be installed within the
outlet structure, essentially consisting in symmetrical circular arc-shaped constriction
elements. Four different locations of the contracted section were tested and the main
differences are illustrated, with specific reference to the energy dissipation
mechanism. The total head loss across the drop structure is definitely constrained by
the downstream hydraulic conditions, so that the global dissipation efficiency
depends on the tailwater channel is either supercritical or subcritical.
According to the experimental results, no significant difference was observed among
the considered locations of the constriction elements, in terms of energy dissipation
efficiency. For practical purposes, it could be concluded that a shorter outlet structure
allows effective energy dissipation, combined with lower construction costs.
Further experimental results will be presented, aiming to show more definite
conclusions to be addressed as design guidelines.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance of Mr. Gaetano Crispino and Mrs. Eufrasia Coviello during the
experimental investigation is gratefully acknowledged.

2722

33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment

REFERENCES
ATV (1998). Standards for the hydraulic dimensioning and performance verification
of special structures in sewers and drains. Standard ATV-A 112. Hennef,
Germany.
Balah M.I.A., Bramley, M.E. (1989). Standard stilling basin design for use with
medium-head vortex drop shafts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 86(1), 91-107.
Del Giudice, G., Gisonni, C., and Rasulo, G. (2008). Vortex shaft outlet. Proceedings
of the 16th IAHR-APD Congress and 3rd International Symposium on Hydraulic
Structures. Nanjing, China. Vol. 6, 2053-2058.
Drioli, C. (1947). Su un particolare tipo di imbocco per pozzi di scarico. LEnergia
Elettrica, 24(10), 447-452 [in Italian].
Jain, S. C., and Kennedy, J. F. (1983). Vortex-flow drop structures for the
Milwaukee metropolitan sewerage district inline storage system. Rep. No. IIHR
264, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Hager, W.H. (1999). Wastewater Hydraulics - Theory and Practice. Spinger-Verlag.
Berlin.
Kellenberger, M.H. (1988). Wirbelfallschchte in der Kanalisationstechnik.
Mitteilung 98. Versuchsanstalt fr Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie. ETHZurich [in German].
Pica, M. (1970). Scaricatori a vortice. LEnergia Elettrica, 47(4), 1-18 [in Italian].
Rajaratnam, N., Mainali A., and Hsung C. Y. (1997). Observations on flow in
vertical dropshafts in urban drainage systems. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 123(5): 486-491.
Viparelli, M. (1950). Su un particolare tipo di imbocco e sullefflusso con vortice.
LEnergia Elettrica, 27(10), 610-624 [in Italian].
Vischer, D. L., and Hager, W. H. (1995). Vortex drops. Energy dissipators, IAHR
hydraulic structures design manual 9, D. L. Vischer and W. H. Hager, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 167181.
Yu, D., Lee, J.H.W. (2009). Hydraulics of tangential vortex intake for urban
drainage. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135(3): 164-174.
Zhao, C.H., Zhu, D.Z., Sun S.K., and Liu Z.P. (2006). Experimental study of flow in
a vertical drop shaft. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 132(1): 61-68.

2723