VOL.101 NO.HY2. FEB.

1975

PROCEEDINGS OF
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY
OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

TECHNICAL COUNCIL ON WATER

RESOURCES PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT
American Society
of Civil Engineers
1975

11142

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

JOURNAL OF THE
HYDRAUL~CS DIVISION
REMOVAL OF

AIR

FROM WATER LINES

BY HYDRAULIC MEANS
By Paul E. Wisner, 1 M. ASCE, Farrukh N. Mohsen,2
and Nicholas Kouwen,3 A. M. ASCE

INTRODUCTION

A survey of case histories involving the causes of air presence in water lines
and its consequences was conducted under the auspices of the Water Research
Section of the University of Waterloo at Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. This survey
and the available literature in this field indicate that air may enter a water
transmission system in a variety of ways and its effects may vary from insignificant
to severe operational difficulties. The significant ways by which air may be
taken into a water line are : vortices at intakes, pumps, turbulence in shafts,
filling of lines , air separation at low pressures, vents, etc. (Fig. 1). Free air
in water lines may give rise to a variety of problems. Some of the more important
of these are reduction of capacity, surges and blow backs, white water, difficulties
in filter operation, reduction of pump efficiency, and corrosion of lines.
The best and the most obvious mea~ure that may be adopted against air
presence in water lines is to remove the cause of air introduction. In many
cases this is not possible, e.g., it is difficult to design a submerged entrance
to avoid vortex action under all heads.
In general removal of air from water lines may be accomplished by two
methods: (I) Mechanically by means of air relief valves, vacuum pumps, and
air traps; and (2) hydraulically by the inertia of flowing water. This report
summarizes the results of an experimental investigation carried out to examine
removal of air by hydraulic means. Although removal by mechanical means
was not investigated, some general indications are provided as to when hydraulic
means are incapable of effective air removal and mechanical methods are to
be adopted.
Note.-Discussion open until July I, 1975. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the Editor of Technical Publications, ASCE. This
paper is part of the copyrighted Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. IOI, No. HY2, February , 1975. Manuscript
was submitted for review for possible publication on May 13, 1974.
1
Mgr., Hydrologic Sciences Div., James F. MacLaren Ltd., Environmental Engrs. and
Scientists, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
2
Research Asst., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
3
Asst. Prof. of Civ . Engrg., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
243

FEBRUARY 1975

244

FIG. 1.-Examples of Bubble Formation

(b)

(c)

FIG. 2.-Examples of Air Removal

V 1 VELOCITY AT SECTION 1-1
Ye

A1

&

""'fj

4,
SECT I ON 1- 1

FIG. 3.-Definition of Variables

HY2

HY2

WATER LINES

245

OBJECTIVES

After an extensive literature survey on air problems in water lines , the objectives
of this research were set up as follows: (1) Simulate, if possible, in a physical
model, all the conditions under which different investigators worked in order
to appreciate each one's recommendations ; (2) investigate the scale effect on
" clearing velocity" ; and (3) recommend some tools to enable practicing engineers
to identify the different aspects of air presence and methods for eliminating
air, or adopting some remedial measures , or both.
0EANITIONS

Air may be present in water lines as "bubbles," "minute bubbles," and

" pockets." "Bubbles" will be defined as small droplets of air entrapped in
water by turbulent action such as the impact of a falling nappe of water or
hydraulic jump. Sizes of bubbles may vary from 0.0394 in. (1 mm)-0.197 in.
(5 mm) . Although pictures of bubbles indicate that their shape is close to ellipsoidal,
an approximate computation from the point of view of surface tension is
accomplished assuming a spheroidal shape. A head difference of d /2 (uniform,
in which d = the diameter of the bubble) indicates a size of d = 0.0253 ft (0.0072
m) for water at 70 F. 21 C "Minute bubbles" arising from the same type
of turbulent action are smaller (of the order of 0.005 ft (0.002 m) and will
not be examined in this paper.
" Pockets" may be defined as air cavities in water lines formed as a result
of a coalescence of "bubbles" and "minute bubbles" and also may be formed
by entrapment of large quantities of air as occurs during the filling of a pipe
line. In many instances, bubbles are generated where turbulent action similar
to that of a hydraulic jump occurs at the tail of air pockets.
The removal of air pockets from a pipeline may take place in the following
ways , individually or by both: (1) Sweeping, i.e., bodily removal of the whole
pocket; and (2) generation and entrainment.
The term " sweeping velocity" will be used to denote the minimum mean
velocity required to bodily transport a pocket or a bubble from a water line.
The term "clearing velocity" will be used to denote the minimum velocity
to clear a pocket out of the line without reference to whether removal occurs
by sweeping or by generation and entrainment.
Turbulent action at the downstream end of a pocket resembling a hydraulic
jump causes bubbles to be ripped off and the process will be referred to as
" generation." "Entrainment" will be ~sed to mean sweeping of the generated
bubbles. Experiments have shown generation may not mean entrainment. Entrainment depends on the hydraulic condition of the flow downstream of the
pocket.
Three practical examples are given in Figs. 2(a)-2(c) where knowledge of
the clearing velocity is desirable.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Two different approaches were adopted by previous investigators to define

a clearing velocity. Some used the rising velocity of pockets in still water as

246

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

an index, while others used stationarity of pockets in flowing water as the

criterion. The recommendations of the previous investigators are :
1. Gandenberger (2)-From his experimental results with rising velocities for
various size air pockets, Ganderberger concluded that if the velocity of flow
in a pipe is greater than or equal to the rising velocity of an air pocket having
a volume of 'TT D 1 /4 (in which D =the diameter of the pipe line), the pipe
would clear.
2. Veronese (9) and Lara (6)-Veronese observed that at some higher velocity
all pockets are reduced by generation and entrainment to a stable size which
he defined as the "limit bubble. " He also observed a velocity that keeps the
limit bubble in equilibrium and named it the " limit velocity." He suggested
that pipes larger than 3.94 in. (100 mm) in diameter would clear at velocities
equal to or above the "limit velocity" for a 3.94-in. (100-mm) pipe which he
found to be 1.93 fps (0.59 m/s).
3. Kalinske-Bliss (3)-Kalinske and Bliss provided a curve of Q
; /(gD 5) versus
slope, in which Qc = discharge at which removal starts. The equation of the
line fitted to the Kalinske-Bliss data is

Q;

= (0.707) tan6 .
gDs

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. (1)

in which 6 = slope of pipe line.

4. Kent (5)-By equating drag on a pocket to bouyancy and using experimental
results to approximate the coefficient of drag, Kent recommended a semi-empirical
formula. Its most commonly used form is
Vmin = 1.62 ~ V gD sin 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
in which Vmin = velocity at which pocket will be in equilibrium; and~ = a shape
factor . From his experimental data he suggested that ~ becomes constant for
pockets of size Lb/ D > 1.5 , in which Lb= length of pocket.
5. Kalinske-Robertson (4)-Kalinske and Robertson provided an experimental
graph of F1 = VJV'iY. versus y1 / D (Fig. 3) for different slopes and suggested
that for a given y1 / D, there is a value of the Froude number below which
the pipe line will carry only a part of the air pumped into the water by the
jump . (Kalinske refers to the turbulent action at the end of a pocket as a
hydraulic jump.) In an indirect way, Kalinske suggested that the normal depth
may be used for y1
The fact that the recommendations of the previous investigators as outlined
vary widely and in some cases may not be satisfactory is exemplified by a
practical example cited by Richards (8). The problem assumed a pipeline
discharging hot water from a condensor into a river. The layout is shown in
Fig. 4. The plant was experiencing head and capacity loss due to air. Problems
were noted when the line was handling 129 cfs (3 .6 m1 /s) and 164.9 cfs (4.66
m1 / s) [velocities of 3.88 fps (1.18 m/ s) and 4.96 fps (1.51 m/ s)] .
The recommended clearing velocities of the previous investigators are listed
in Table 1, which shows that: (1) There is a diversity in the velocities proposed ;
and (2) problems may be present even if a pipeline velocity is considerably

HY2

247

WATER LINES

higher than the highest of those listed. On the other hand, an example may
be cited where an investigator found that Kent's proposed value is on the safe
side. Babb (1) took measurements on a prototype siphon and a model and
TABLE 1.-Velocities Proposed by Various Investigators

Recommended clearing velocity,

in feet per second
(meters per second)

Investigator
(1)

(2)

Ganderberger (2)
Veronese (9) and Lara (6)
Kalinski-Bliss (3)
Kent (5)

3.7
( 1.13)
1.92
(0.586)
2.04
(0.622)
2.46
(0.750)

57

FIG. 4.-Example of Problematic Case (1 in.

25.4 mm)

FIG. 5.-Definition of Variables

showed that the prototype cleared satisfactorily at a velocity lower than that
proposed by Kent.
Two possible reasons may account for the apparent disagreement noted : (1)

248

HY2

FEBRUARY 1975

Conditions adopted by different investigators were not general ; and (2) scale
effects. From these conclusions and from the fact that all the previous investigators
worked with relatively small diameters and prototypes were comparatively large.
This leads to the conclusion that an investigation is needed: (1) Into the diversity
of results of previous investigators; and (2) to establish whether or not a similitude
exists in the matter of " clearing velocity " , i.e. , whether or not laboratory results
could be extrapolated for prototypes.
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF MECHANICS OF STABLE ISOLATED POCKETS IN PIPELINE

The sweeping (equilibrium) velocity, V,, of a pocket in water in a pipeline

may be assumed to be a function of the diameter , D; the inclination , 0, the
mass density , p (of water only, neglecting that of air); acceleration due to gravity,
g ; the length of the pocket, LB; and the viscosity of water, w. Recalling
definitions presented previously for pockets and bubbles , it is only in the case
of bubbles where surface tension is significant. From the Buckingham 'IT theorem ,
a functional relationship of the following form should exist among the governing
parameters :
f(V, ,D,0,p,g,LB , ) =

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

Thus, a functional relationship of the following for m should be present:

t( ~ , :B, :.~p ,0)

0 ........ . ................ .(4)

wf p with v w the kinematic viscosity of water is

Replacing
gD

v,

LB V,D

vw

-0=0
f ( -2,
'
'

By rearranging

. . . . . . . . . (5)

V,
Vgt5
= f (LB
D ,R ,0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

in which R =Reynold's number with D(diameter) as the characteristic length.

Expressing a pocket size by a dimensionless quantity n, in which n = V/
('IT / 4 D 3) where V = volume of pocket; and assuming that for the same n and
0 there is a family of geometrically similar pockets as in Fig. 5 characterized
by the same LB/ D ratio, then for the same n and 0

v,

r-r.
v gD

= f (R) . . .

. . . . . (7)

The dimensional relationship obtained previously may now be utilized for

two purposes: (1) Analysis of a rising pocket in still water ; and (2) analysis
of an air pocket held steady in moving water. In still water it may be argued
that instead of water flowing with V, to keep the pocket in equilibrium the
pocket is rising in still water with a uniform velocity V, = V,. Thus

v,

r-r. =
v gD

f(R, 0) for a constant n .

. . . . (8)

249

WATER LINES

HY2
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The size, length, slopes, and summit bend geometry of the experimental set
up was based on the following.
Size.-Probably the most important aspect of this research was to investigate
- - - -----$ -

EL

4 71 M

FIG. 6.-Layout of Experimental Model (1 m

39.37 in.; 1 cm

0.39 in.)

FIG. 7.-Laboratory Model Looking Upstream

the scale effects related to the mechanics of air pockets. Previous investigators
worked mostly with I-in. (25-mm-4-in. (100-mm) diam pipes and, in one case,
6 in. (150 mm) . Modern prototype water transmission lines are often very large
in diameter. Thus an investigation of the scale effects by experimenting on
larger pipes is necessary. This approach has been recommended by a number

250

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

of practicing engineers, including Richards (8). A considerably larger pipe size

would have been desirable but a compromise was made because of the laboratory
facilities available [constant head overhead tank-maximum discharge about 5
cfs (0.14 m3 /s)] and an ID of 10 in. (250 mm) was selected.
Length.-From the literature survey, it was realized that a pocket length
of about 12 diameters-15 diameters should be considered to include a possible
turbulent zone of about 10 diameters. The length was set 30 diameters, or
about 24 ft (7.3 m) .
Slope and Summit Bend.-The two investigators who worked with pockets
in an aerated flow were Kent (5) and Kalinske-Robertson (4). Kent worked
with slopes from 15-60 and Kalinske-Robertson worked with slopes from
1.15-16.7. An apparent disagreement between their results indicates the possibility of some transitional conditions in the overlapping slope zones of the two
investigators. A slope near 16 was chosen for the model. Because it was intended
to compare the experimental results with prototype measurements made on
a siphon at the Colorado Foothill feeder , the upstream slope was set to 17
which was connected to the 18.5 downstream slope line by a 35.5 bend having
a center line radius of 2.8 diameters.
Another reason for choosing the particular slope was that most investigators
indicated that the worst clearing conditions existing in the slope range of 15-60
and that the variation in clearing velocity in this slope range was relatively
small. The 18.5 slope was the best alternative considering the laboratory head
room clearance.
The setup is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows the equipment used. The flow
from the laboratory constant head tank was controlled by two valves connected
at the upstream and downstream ends of the model.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Still Water.-In order to investigate the relationship between V, /V gD and

R, a series of experiments was performed in which pockets of different sizes
were allowed to rise in the 18.5 downstream leg [9-5/8-in. (244-mm) pipe].
The velocity of rise was recorded and the results are presented in Fig. 8. The
mean values obtained from the best fit curve in Fig. 8 are plotted in terms
of V,/V gD versus R for 18 .5 together with Gardenberger's results for other
pipe sizes (Fig. 9). From the plots it may be concluded that for values of
the Reynold's number above 105 , VJVgD becomes independent of the Reynold's
number. Again, for the same slope, 6, the writers ' experimental results along
with Gandenberger's, suggest that [V,lv'gD]R. ,, 10 s becomes independent for
n ~, 0.8. Thus generalizing

[V,/vgDJR.,,1os .... o.s =

/(6) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . (9)

The variation of the rising velocity with slope is complicated by the change
shape with slope. However, Fig. 10 shows the variation of
[ V,/vgD JR.,, io5,n > 0_8 with 6, based on Gandenberger's and the writers results.
Moving Water .-An experiment was performed to investigate Veronese's ''limit
bubble. " A large pocket was introduced in flowing water. The water velocity
was changed continuously to keep the pocket in equilibrium as disruption

of

WATER LINES

HY2

251

3 0

...

>

..

20

0 10

0 20

0 30

0-40

FIG. 8.-Experimental Results of Rising Velocity of Pockets

0 60-- - - - - - - - - -8=185
0 50

~ 0-40

o "'o AUTHOR
* o GANDENBERGER

>
0 30

0 20 2L_O_O_ _ _ ___J.3_D_0 _ _ _ __

Log

4~
-o
-o-----~5-0....,....,0_

_ _ _ ____,....6DO

(R )

FIG. 9.-Variation of Rising Velocity with Pocket Size

..,
0

" ' 06 ~

a::
CD

P---~---

05 ~

"'c:

I1

'

~ OA ~

""" 03'--~1--~'--~'--~'--~'--.1..' __..._

, __J_
I _~
o
10
20
30
40
so
60
10
so 90

>

e-

FIG. 10.-Variation of Rising Velocity with Slope

252

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

progressed. It was observed that the pocket was finally reduced to a small
stable size and that any increase of the velocity does not further disrupt the
pocket but sweeps it out. The successive stages of disruption and the final
stable pocket are shown in Fig. 11. The results extend Veronese 's results on
limit length and limit velocity (Figs. 12 and 13). The results confirm that, in
the range of Veronese's and the writers' experiments at least, stability may
be achieved for a particular size of pocket and flow velocity. The values are
unique, i.e., for a particular diameter and slope there is one stable length and
corresponding velocity. From a study of the mechanics of isolated air pockets

FIG. 11.-Stages of Disruption of Isolated Pocket

in still water it was expected that since Lb/ D (consequently n) for limit bubbles
varies with pipe size, the parameter, V,/'\/iD, will not be independent of R.
This is indicated by the plot of Veronese 's and the writers ' experimental data
on limit bubbles (Fig. 14). Although no general rule can be offered unless more
experiments are performed for a greater range of Reynold 's number it may
be concluded that the parameter, VJ'\/iD, is a function of Reynold 's number
V, / '\/ii5 decreasing with R beyond R = 4.2 x 104
The experimental results clarified two important points. (1) The limit velocity
does not become a constant quantity with increasing diameter as suggested

HY2

253

WATER LINES

by Veronese and Lara, but it decreases with diameter (at least in the range
of writers ' and Veronese's experiments; and (2) the limit length does not become
a constant beyond 3.94 in. (100 mm) in diameter, but decreases at a decreasing

8=18 5

150

E
u

VERONESE
AUTHOR

50

50

10 0

150

200

250

D (cm)

FIG. 12.-Variation of Limit Length with Diameter (1 cm

c.
E

0.39 in.)

8:19 .5

!:: 0 6

VERONESE

:::;:

AUTH/"

_J

>
OA

/
D (cm)

FIG . 13.-Variation of Limit Velocity with Diameter (1 cm

0.39 in.)

rate. For the 9-5 / 8-in. (244-mm) pipe the limit velocity and limit length were
found to be 2.35 fps (0 .72 m/ s) and 1.8 in. (46 mm), respectively.
A more comprehensive research program on larger pipe diameters would be

254

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

necessary to extrapolate adequately the laboratory results . However , Fig. 14

may help as a rough estimation of the limit velocity.
Air-Fed Pockets in Moving Water.-Kent's formula (Eq. 2) is often used in
practice because of its simplicity. However, an examination of Kent 's formula
shows that there is a systematic deviation from his experimental results (Fig.
'LIMIT BUBBLE
VL = LIMIT VELOCITY

7 18
14 47

...

"'

0-4L3_5_ _ _ ___J40_:__ _ _ _4~.-5-----5~.0------::-5.~5

LOG

FIG. 14.-Variation of Limit Velocity with Slope

10
09

08

l<ALINSl<E

x AUTHOR

07

(RANGE OF KENT'S
RESULTS)
( FIGURES BESIDE EACH
POINT INDICATE
CORRESPONDING Y1/D )

'-.. 06
u
>
05
OA

"''o "'

0 3'-----'----''---'-----'--_,___ __.__ _,,___~,-...,,~-..,...,,---~

OO
01 0 2
0 3
OA
0 5
0 6
07
08
09
I0

~FIG. 15.-Comparison of Kent's Formula with His Experimental Results

16). Because of the complexity introduced by many variables , a reasonable

approach was thought to be the plotting of all available experimental results
and to provide a lower bound for the velocity. Fig. 15 shows a comparison
giving the line, Vc!Vif5 = 0 .25v'SII10 + 0.825, as the lower bound of the

HY2

255

WATER LINES

velocity parameter, in which Ve = critical velocity to provide satisfactory removal.

Values of the velocity parameter should not be much higher than the lower
bound as this will introduce a problem of blowback. From experience it is
felt that the most satisfactory performance would be achieved if the velocity

10 ~----------,,----r----------,

0 9
0 8
0 7

06

I~

0 5

~ 0-4
0 3
02
OI

05

l O
V ( mps)

15

20

FIG. 16.-Recommended Envelope Curve for Clearing of Aerated Pockets

parameter is kept within + 5% of the lower bound. This is beneficial in designs

where it is not economically feasible to provide sufficient upstream head to
achieve the lower bound velocity. In this case air removal should be handled
by air release valves.
Time of Clearance.-The times for clearance of particular size air pockets

256

FEBRUARY 1975

HY2

were compared with those of a prototype (Siphon at Colorado foothill feeder)

and another model by Babb (1).
The comparison shows that larger pipes clear much faster than smaller ones
at the same Froudian velocity. This indicates the absence of any conventional
similitude concerning the clearing of isolated air pockets. The fast clearance
in the prototype may probably be explained by the fact that the size of generated
bubbles do not vary significantly in model and prototype and at the same Froudian
scale the prototype velocity is much higher, thus facilitating the removal of
generated bubbles.
CONCLUSIONS

Some general conclusions may be drawn concerning isolated air pockets : (1 )

No conventional similitude exists for the time of clearance of isolated air pockets
in water lines; (2) the results of model studies on time of clearance are very
conservative using a Froudian scale; and (3) for ordinary water distribution
systems having sizes below approx 1 ft (0 .305 m) in diameter, the clearance
of isolated pockets entrapped during filling may require very high velocity for
fast clearing and, consequently, mechanical removal by air relief valves may
be more feasible. From a practical point of view, probably the most important
conclusion is that (except for vented lines) the clearing of air pockets (both
isolated and air-fed) may require velocities so high that they cannot be attained
because of engine~ring or economic constraints . For these circumstances a
mechanical removal by air release valves or other devices may offer a better
alternative.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study was supported by the University of Waterloo and the National
Research Council of Canada. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX !.-REFERENCES

1. Babb, A. F. , and Johnson, W. K ., "Performance Characteristics of Siphon Outlets ,"

Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. HY6 , Proc. Paper 6237 , Nov.,
1968, pp. 1421-1437.
2. Gandenberger, W., "Design of Overland Water Supply Pipe Lines for Economy and
Operational Reliability" (in German) , 1957, Munich, Germany, (a rough translation
of the text has been carried out by W. A. Mechler , discussion of " Factors Influencing
Flow in Large Conduits," Report of the Task Force on Flow in Large Conduits of
the Committee on Hydraulic Structures , Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 92, No. HY4, Proc . Paper 4859, July, 1966, p. 203.
3. Kalinske, A. A., and Bliss, P. H ., "Removal of Air from Pipelines by Flowing Water,"
Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 10, Oct. , 1943, p. 480.
4. Kalinske, A. A., and Robertson , J. M., "Closed Conduit Flow, " Transactions , ASCE ,
Vol. 108, Paper 2195 , 1943, pp . 781-783 .
5. Kent, J. C., "The Entrainment of Air by Water Flowing Through Circular Conduits
with Downgrade Slopes ," thesis Presented to he University of California, at Berkeley ,
Calif. , in 1952, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
6. Lara, C. D., "Degayage Nature! dans !es pints incline relient !es aductions secondaires
aux galeries en charge," Proceedings of the 6th General Meeting, International Association

WATER LINES

HY2

257

for Hydraulic Research , The Hague, Netherlands, 1955 (in French).

7. Mohsen, F. N . , "Clearing Velocity of Air Pockets in Water Lines," thesis presented
to the University of Waterloo, at Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, in 1972, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science.
8. Richards, R. T., "Air Binding in Large Pipe Lines Flowing Under Vacuum," Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 83, No. HY6, Part 1, Proc. Paper 1454, Dec.,
1957, pp . 1454-1454-10.
9. Veronese , A., "Sul motto delle bolle d'aria nelle condotte d'acqua" (in Italian), Estrato
dal fasciacolo X, Vol. XIV, Ottobre , 1937, p. XV .
APPENDIX 11.-NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A1
D
d

F
g

LB
n

Q,
R
T1

v,
v,

vmin
v,
v,
Y.

v1
= A 1 / T1
Y1

water area at section 1-1 (Fig. 3);

diameter of pipeline
diameter of bubble;
Froude number;
acceleration due to gravity;
length of pocket;
dimensionless pocket size;
discharge at which removal starts;
Reynolds number;
top water width at section 1-1 (Fig. 3);
volume of pocket;
critical velocity for satisfactory removal;
limit velocity;
velocity at which pocket is at equilibrium;
rising velocity;
sweeping velocity;
velocity at section 1-1 (Fig. 3);
hydraulic depth at section 1-1 (Fig. 3);
normal depth of flow at section 1-1 (Fig. 3);
inclination of pipe;
viscosity of water;
kinematic viscosity of water;
shape factor; and
mass density of water.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,