A WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL PUBLICATION

ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

BUFCCATI OF P1..?1,1!13
Lti
HYDRAULT:

ircr. r
Ft -T.
DO WOP BEYOVE FROM THIS FILE

Hydraulic Design of Transitions for

Small Canals
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION!
A WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL PUBLICATION

Engineering Monograph No. 33

Hydraulic Design of Transitions for

Small Canals
By W. P. SIMMONS, Jr.

Division of Research
Office of Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado

United States Department of the Interior • Stewart L. Udall, Secretary

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner

B. P. Bellport, Chief Engineer

 In its assigned function as the Nation's principal natural resource
agency, the Department of the Interior bears a special obligation to
assure that our expendable resources are conserved, that renewable
resources are managed to produce optimum yields, and that all re-
sources contribute their full measure to the progress, prosperity, and
security of America, now and in the future.

ENGINEERING MONOGRAPHS are published in limited editions for the

technical staff of the Bureau of Reclamation and interested technical circles in
Government and private agencies. Their purpose is to record developments,
innovations, and progress in the engineering and scientific techniques and
practices that are employed in the planning, design, construction, and opera-
tion of Reclamation structures and equipment.
First Printing: April 1964

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1964

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 20402, or the Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, Attention 841, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, Colo., 80225. Price 35 cents
Preiace
THIS MONOGRAPH is the Bureau of Reclamation's
first progress report on methods used and results
obtained in determining energy losses and flow
characteristics of transitions for moderate and
small size canals. The transitions are used to
connect pipelines to canals and canals to pipelines.
The testing techniques and the conclusions reached
in evaluating variables affecting erosion, or scour,
in canals adjacent to the transitions are also de-
scribed. The research studies discussed are part
of the Bureau's program of hydraulic research
directed toward the development of more efficient
and economical designs for water conveyance
structures.
The monograph was prepared in the Office of the
Chief Engineer, Denver, Colo. It is based on
information originally reported in the Bureau's
Hydraulics Branch Laboratory Report No. Hyd-
492, "Progress Report 1—Research Studies or
Inlet and Outlet Transitions for Small Canals,'
dated July 31, 1962. The author of the mono-
graph presented the paper "Inlet and Outlet
Transitions for Canals and Culverts" at the
Twelfth Annual Hydraulics Division Conference
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, a
University Park, Pa., August 6-9, 1963. Th
paper embraces essentially the same informatio
contained in the laboratory report.
The results achieved through the studies de
scribed in this monograph were obtained by the
close cooperation between the staffs of the Canals
Branch, Division of Design, and the Hydraulics
Branch, Division of Research. The data werq
compiled over a period of several years. Manyt
engineers assisted in the performance of the testo
and in analyzing the data obtained.
.k

_
Contents
Page

Preface

Introduction

Test Equipment 3

Investigation 15

Open-Channel Transitions 15
Closed-Conduit Transitions—Air Model Tests 23
Combination Closed-Conduit and Open-Channel Transitions 29
Closed-Conduit Transitions—Hydraulic Tests 30
12- by 28-inch Transition 30
12- by 24-inch Transition 31
Square Inlet on 12- by 24-inch Transition 36

Conclusions 37

LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page

1. Typical field installation of a broken-back transition. Siphon out-

let at station 521, West Lateral, Rogue River Basin project,
Oreg 1
2. Schematic views of test facilities 4
3. Hydraulic model and instrumentation 5
4. Broken-back transitions and flow-spreading hump 6
5. Flow conditions and scour. Outlet flow, broken-back transition
modified with warped surfaces, 1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise 7
6. Velocity distributions and loss factors, 12- by 28-inch closed-conduit
transition, horizontal pipeline 8
7. Velocity distributions and loss factors, 12- by 24-inch closed-conduit
transition, horizontal pipeline 9
8. Velocity distributions and loss factors, 12- by 24-inch closed-conduit
transition, with divider pier, horizontal pipeline 10
vi CONTENTS
Number Page
9. Air model facilities for testing closed-conduit transitions 11
10. Closed-conduit transitions tested on air modeL. 12
11. Wall pressures on closed-conduit transitions used as outlets. Ap-
proach pipe 6.2 D long. Air model tests 13
12. Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, broken-back
transition, 1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal 16
13. Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, broken-back
transition, 1 to 8 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal_ _ _ _ 17
14. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, broken-back
transition, 1 to 8 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe on 2 to 1 slope_ 18
15. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, 30° broken-back
transition, 4-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal 18
16. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, 25° broken-back
transition, 4-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal 19
17. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, 25° broken-back
transition, 4-inch rise, inlet pipe on 2 to 1 slope 19
18. Scour patterns, outlet flows, 20° broken-back transition, 4-inch
rise, 20-inch canal invert 20
19. Flow and scour in canal protected by 4-inch layer of 1M-inch gravel,
1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise transition with warped walls and hori-
zontal pipeline, outlet flows 21
20. Table of operating conditions and performance characteristics of
transitions 22
21. Effect of submergence on loss coefficients—N1=0.71,
f.p.s 23
22. Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, combination
closed-conduit and broken-back transition with floor deflector,
1 to 5.5 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal 24
23. Velocity distribution for closed-conduit transitions used as outlets,
approach pipe 6.2 D long. Air model tests 25
24. Velocity distribution for closed-conduit transitions used as outlets,
approach pipe 20.4 D long. Air model tests 26
25. Draft head at inlet and loss coefficients for closed-conduit transi-
tions used as outlets. Air model tests 27
26. Area curves for constant height, circular-to-rectangular transitions
and for conic transitions 27
27. Combination transition using closed-conduit and open-channel
broken-back section, with and without humps 28
28. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, combination closed-
conduit and broken-back transition, 1 to 5.5 slope, 12-inch rise,
inlet pipe horizontal 29
29. Scour patterns, outlet flows, combination closed-conduit and
broken-back transition, 1 to 5.5 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe
on 2 to 1 slope 30
30. Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet flows, combination closed-
conduit and broken-back transition, level invert, inlet pipe on
2 to 1 slope 31
31. Closed-conduit round-to-rectangular and square-to-rectangular
transitions 32
 CONTENTS vii
Number Page
32. Flow conditions, 12- by 24-inch closed-conduit transition, 4 f.p.s.
velocity in pipeline, inlet pipe horizontal. 33
33. Scour patterns, outlet flows, 12- by 28-inch, closed-conduit transi-
tion, inlet pipe horizontal 34
34. Scour patterns, outlet flows, 12- by 24-inch, closed-conduit transi-
tion, 4 f.p.s. velocity in pipeline, inlet pipe horizontal 35
35. Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, 12- by 24-inch
transition, 6 f.p.s. velocity, inlet pipe horizontal 36
36. Loss factors, 12-inch square to 12- by 24-inch rectangular transi-
tion, inlet pipe horizontal 36
37. Design sheet for small canal transitions 38
.
Introduction

THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION water resource

development projects embracing irrigation dis-
tribution systems and related structures require
large numbers of reinforced concrete transitions
for pipelines which discharge into canals, as well
as transitions for canals that discharge into pipe-
lines. When the transitions are small—for ex-
ample, for 36-inch or smaller pipes--the special
forming of concrete required for warped transi-
tions is usually not justified. For these small
transitions, the broken-back type of transition
made entirely of plane surfaces is used, as illus-
trated in Figure 1.
In early designs of Bureau of Reclamation canal
systems incorporating broken-back transitions as
outlets from pipelines to canals, a loss value of
0.3 V
2g 2g
P
Ve2) was used. In this expression, V
-- FIGURE 1.—Typical field installation of a broken-back
transition. Siphon outlet at station 521, West Lateral
is flow velocity in the pipeline, V, is velocity in Rogue River Basin Project, Oreg. November 1961.
the canal, and Os the acceleration due to gravity
(approximately 32 feet per second per second).
This 0.3 loss factor was derived intuitively and is used when the transitions served as inlets fro
apparently not supported by experimental data. canals to pipelines.
, was In recent years, there has been concern abou
A similarly derived loss of 0.1 (r _M the possibility of actual losses being greater tha
2g 2g)
1
714-653 0-64 2
 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33
12he 0.3 and 0.1 values used in the early designs.
If the losses were appreciably greater, the struc-
tures could be restrictions in the distribution
systems and reduce the carrying capacity to less
than the design values. This would have serious
effect upon operation of the irrigation system
when the lands were fully developed. Bureau
engineers therefore believed it important to con-
duct tests to determine the actual losses and to
make any necessary changes in the design values.
The investigations would be extended, as neces-
sary, to obtain designs with lower losses.
A second important factor was the amount of
scour or erosion in the canal immediately down-
stream from transitions when they were used as
outlets. The effect of changes in the upward
slope of the transition invert, in the entering
pipeline, or in the rate of divergence of the transi-
tion sidewalls on canal erosion were not known.
Evaluation of these variables was necessary before
design decisions could be made as to optimum
outlet shape and canal bank protection
requirements.
The many different operating conditions and
design modifications involved in the testing pro-
gram dictated that the studies be conducted in a
laboratory where such changes could be made
easily and quickly. To fill this need, studies
were inaugurated and are continuing on an inter-
mittent basis in the Hydraulics Branch of the
Bureau's engineering laboratories in Denver, Colo.
This monograph discusses. results that have been
obtained thus far, and the equipment and pro-
cedures used in the tests.
Test Equipment
OST OF THE STUDIES were made using a canal
M section contained within a wooden structure
supported about 5 feet above the laboratory
floor, and equipped with suitable piping and in-
strumentation (Figs. 2 and 3A). The canal bed
was formed of loose plastering sand that eroded
easily and showed scour effects within a short time.
Canal invert widths of 12 and 18 inches were used,
and the canal sides lay on 1% to 1 slopes. The
canal invert was level in the direction of flow. A
template that rode on the top rails of the box was
used as a guide for reshaping the canal bed be-
tween runs (Fig. 3A).
In early studies, the transitions were tested only
as outlet structures with the flow passing from the
pipeline, through the transition, and into the canal.
The 12-inch-diameter pipe that supplied water to
the transition was placed level in part of the tests,
and on a 2 to 1 upslope to the transition for other
tests. The depth of flow in the canal was regu-
lated by an adjustable tailgate at the downstream
end of the model.
In later studies, the transitions were studied
both as inlets • and outlets. The piping was
modified so that, in addition to the flow described
above, water could be introduced into the canal
from the tailgate end of the box to produce inlet
flows into the transition and pipeline (Fig. 2).
Water leaving the test section was controllqd
by the tailgate when outlet flow tests were mad*,
and by appropriate valves in the piping systeln
when inlet tests were made. The desired canal
water surface elevations could therefore be main-
tained.
The broken-back transitions, Figure 4, were
constructed of %-inch plywood and were treatid
to avoid excessive water absorption. In some
cases, warped sections made of concrete were
constructed within the confines of broken-bac*
transitions (Fig. 5). The closed-conduit trap-
sitions Were usually made of 16-gage sheet st el
with external reinforcement, as required, and with
%-inch-thick steel flanges upstream and dow
stream.
The rate of water flow supplied to the model 4,s
measured by calibrated permanently installOd
Venturi meters in the laboratory's central water
supply system. Water was taken from the labolla-
tory's reservoir, pumped through the meters Old
3
 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33
-Water Supply Line

Transition
-----------------y
,
I I
,1
„
5'-11"

PLAN

18 . -6" -- ( Adjustable
tailgate
, Piezometer stations

-Vaned elbow-- -

In Ir.-

'-12" LW, Pipe Sand bed

Per orated
baffle -
2" Vernier bypass

—12" L.W. Pipe

Floor -
" 0 , „

Reservoir
ELEVATION

TO OPERATE
AS AN
INLET TRANSITION OUTLET TRANSITION

CLOSE C, D A, B

OPEN A, B C, D

SECTION B—B TABLE OF VALVE POSITIONS FOR

INLET AND OUTLET FLOWS

FIGURE 2.—Schematic views of test facilities.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 5

'
aVAT6 e 414\
T ' ,4101/ • "'

A. Canal model with template in place for

shaping sand bed. Closed conduit transi-
tion installed with horizontal approach
pipe.

B. Stilling wells and point gages for deter- C. Point gage for determining water surface
mining hydraulic grade in 12-inch pipeline. elevation in canal.

FIGURE 3.—Hydraulic model and instrumentation.

 0,

I I
__Li_

PLAN

8' 0" i-------- 4-0" 3'-

I2-inch light I2-inch light
weight pipe- weight pipe,
I2-inch light
weight pipe;

D. HUMP USED IN I 8 SLOPE

6-INCH RISE TRANSITION
21,8
csi
SECTION A-A SECTION A-A SECTION A -A
1
A. 1:8 SLOPE, 12-INCH RISE B. 1:8 SLOPE, 6-INCH RISE C. 2--INCH RISE
1:8 SLOPE, 4 -

12 - INCH CANAL INVERT WIDTH

HdVd DONOWDN12133N I DN3

SECTION C-C
PLAN

4,- 4, I2-inch light 3 , 12-inch light

I2-inch light weight pipe,
weight pipe-, weight pipe)
-4

;^-lt
B
SECTION A-A SECTION A-A SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
E. 20° DIVERGENCE, 4-INCH RISE F. 25' DIVERGENCE, 4-INCH RISE G. 30 DIVERGENCE, 4-INCH RISE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
20-INCH CANAL INVERT WIDTH

FIGURE 4.—Broken-back transitions and flow-spreading hump.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS
A. The surface is turbulent with Q=3.1 c.f.s.,
Vp=4.0 f.p.s., depth-----1.3 D. A boil occurs near
the headwall.
B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Q=2.4 c.f.s.,
V= 3.0 f.p.s., depth=1.3 D. Sand was deposited
in the transition.
FIGURE 5.—Flow conditions and scour. Outlet flow,
broken-back transition modified with warped surfaces.
1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise. Inlet pipe on 2 to 1 slope.
the model, and returned to the reservoir for re-
circulation.
When a transition was used as an outlet, the
pressure head in the 12-inch-diameter pipeline
was measured at a station 1 foot (one-conduit
diameter) upstream from the transition. When
the transition was used as an inlet, the pipeline
head was measured at a station 15 feet (15 D)
downstream from the junction of the transition
with the pipeline. Two piezometers, one on each
side of the pipe on the horizontal centerline, were
used to obtain the pressures. The pressure leads
were connected to 1s-inch-diameter stilling wells,
and point gage measurements were made of the
free water surfaces within the wells (Fig. 3B).
The water surface elevations in the canal were
measured with point gages 15 feet downstream
from the junction of the transition with the canal
for outlet flows, and 4 feet upsteam from this
junction for inlet flows (Fig. 3C).
Throughout the test program difficulty wa
experienced in obtaining consistent data becaus
the quantities being determined were small corn
pared to the possible errors. Establishing wate
surface elevations was of primary importance and
several procedures were used to relate accurately
the reading of one gage to another. Best result
were obtained by filling the model to a 12-inch
canal depth with no normal flow occurring, and
after allowing considerable time for turbulence
and oscillations to cease, obtaining the gage
relationships.
During test runs, data were taken as soon as
proper conditions were established and before
extensive canal erosion occurred. Accurately
determining the canal water surface was compli'
cated by the fact that submerged instrument
could not be used because it was necessary to mov
the canal template up and down the model t
reshape the bed. A water surface point gage wa
used instead, and repeated readings were mad
during a test run to obtain a good average figur
for the undulating, wavy, or choppy water sur
faces. Small stilling wells worked satisfactoril
for the piezometer readings for the pipeline.
Operator technique had considerable influence
on the observed data and with training and
experience the accuracy and consistency improved
greatly. Despite the efforts and precautions
taken, the basic problem remained of seeking
small values among relatively large potential
errors. Therefore, the data presented herei
may be accepted as representative, but mino
variations and scatter can be expected.
In the closed-conduit outlet transition test
velocity measurements were made of the flow
the pipeline 1.3 D upstream from the transitio
inlet and at the transition exit (Figs. 6, 7, and 8)I.
For inlet flows, velocity traverses were made in
the pipeline 1.1 D downstream from the junction
of the transition with the pipeline. A 3/16-inch-
diameter total head tube was used for measure-
ments in the pipeline, and a rinch-diameter
Prandtl-type pitot-static tube was used for
measurements at the canal end of the transition.
Studies of closed-conduit expanding-outlet
transitions were also made with a test facili,
using air as the flowing fluid (Fig. 9). Air was
drawn from the atmosphere through a 12-inch-
diameter pipe into the centrifugal blower. It
then passed through a 10.14-inch-diameter pipeline
8 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33
Left Side 1.0 Left Side i.o
crgo
.9

.8

7 .7

.6 .6

>" .5

.4 .4

.3 .3

.2 .2

.1

Right Side Right Side 0

1.0 i.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20
6 .8
VA".

A. PIPELINE UPSTREAM B. OUTLET TRAVERSES

FROM OUTLET TRANSITION ABOVE INVERT

Left Side i.o Left Side i.o

.9 .9

.8

.7 .7

.6 .6

.4 .4

3 .3

2 .2

re.
41
: 0e Right Side
Right Side 0 0 1.6 1.8 20 00 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 18 20
.2 .4 .6 8 1.0 1.2 1.4

V/VAv o . 'AVG.
C. OUTLET TRAVERSES D/2 D. OUTLET TRAVERSES 3%
ABOVE FLOOR ABOVE INVERT

Left Side I.o

.9

.e

0.2 .7 0.5

.6
1
0.1 'I. 04 6

0 .3 0.3
07 08 03 04 05 06 0.7 08 0.9
03 04 05 06
FROUDE NUMBER .2 FROUDE NUMBER Nir Vbgd

E. LOSSES vs FROUDE NUMBER G. LOSSES -vs FROUDE NUMBER

OUTLET FLOWS INLET FLOWS

Right Side
.6 .e 10 1.2
V/VA v

F. PIPELINE DOWNSTREAM
FROM INLET TRANSITION
10" canal depth V1 = Velocity in pipeline,fps.
12 canal depth V2 = Velocity in canal,fps.
- 15 canal depth ,--OUTLET TRAVERSE STATION D = Pipeline diameter, feet
(-PIPELINE TRAVERSE STATION
,-CANAL AHe = Energy loss from pipeline to
FLOW
canal (outlet flows) or canal
to pipeline (inlet flows) feet,
water.

Dk 6D

FIGURE 6.-Velocity distributions and loss factors, 12- by 28-inch closed-conduit transition, horizontal pipeline.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 9

Left Side 1.0 Left Side 1.0

.9
\ea
.8 .8
DS
\
.7 .7

.6
.6

.- 71 5
AI
.4 .4

.3 .3 ,./1)
.2

.1 .s0"
Right Side Right Side
0 .2 .4
-.4,6f
.6 .8 1.0 12 1.4 1.6 18 20
.6 .8 1.0 1.2
V/VA
VAAvo.
A. PIPELINE UPSTREAM B. OUTLET TRAVERSES
FROM OUTLET TRANSITION ABOVE INVERT

Left Side 1.0 Left Side 1.0

.9 0 „Its,
.9

.8

.7
.7

.6
0\ \ .6

'5

.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2

.1
cAVIr Right Side
Right Side 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 16 18 20
Vv.,/
V/VAvO.
D. OUTLET TRAVERSES 30/4
C. OUTLET TRAVERSES D/2
ABOVE INVERT ABOVE INVERT

Left Side 1.0

.9 0.5

.8

.
...-; ; 0.5
..f' \
0.2
1
a
a .6
-.-
- a- 0.4
1
0 .4
1
GOO
.3 0.3
0 03 04 05 06 07 08
03 04 05 06 07 08
.2 FROUDE NUMBER
FROUDE NUMBER N, =
10 G. LOSSES-vs-FROUDE NUMBER
E. LOSSES-vs-FROUDE NUMBER .1
INLET FLOWS
OUTLET FLOWS
Right Side .8 1.0
V/VA v G

F. PIPELINE DOWNSTREAM
FROM INLET TRANSITION V, = Velocity in pipeline,tu.
Ion canal depth
V2 = Velocity in canal,fp.s.
0 0 12" canal depth
,--OUTLET TRAVERSE STATION D - Pipeline diameter, feet
A- - - - -A 15" canal depth ,-PIPELINE TRAVERSE STATION
c-CANAL AHe = Energy loss from pipeline to
FLOW canal (outlet flows) or canal
to pipeline (inlet flows) feet,
water.
 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

Left Side 1.0 Left Side 1.0

LC.
.9 efte,„ .9

er. .8
.8

.7
FL
.6 .6

4malmo1W
•5
.4 .4 Ns
'

.3 .3

.2 .2

.1 .1
te
Right Side 0 Right Side o
.6 8 LO 1.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 10 1.2 1.4 1.6 18 2.0

%AVG. V/VOVO.
A. PIPELINE UPSTREAM B. OUTLET TRAVERSES
FROM OUTLET TRANSITION ABOVE INVERT

Left Side .0 Left Side 1.0

sZg°4-er scl"N
.9 .9

8 .8

7 .7

.6 .6

.5

.4 .4
\06

.3 .3

.2
.2

Right Side o o
-04.* Right Side -A4f-
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 12 14 16 18 20
.2 .4 .6 8 10 1.2 L4 1.6 1.8 20
V/4AVO.

C. OUTLET TRAVERSES D/2 D. OUTLET TRAVERSES 312/4

ABOVE INVERT ABOVE INVERT

Left Side i.o 0-

0.6

2
.7 0.5
0.2

.6 7Z:ge
lc. r-. 0.4
0.1
_
>7 .4

.3 0.3
03 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0 0.8

FROUDE NUMBER N, = .2 FROUDE NUMBER NF v/5

* Recalculated head loss coefficients
E. LOSSES -vs • FROUDE NUMBER .1 for partially filled outlet pipe.
OUTLET FLOWS 0
Right Side
G. LOSSES vs FROUDE NUMBER
6 .8 1.0 INLET FLOWS

F. PIPELINE DOWNSTREAM
FROM INLET TRANSITION
10" canal depth V, =Velocity in pipeline,f.p.s.
0 12 canal depth V2 = Velocity in canal,tp,,s,.
A- - - - 8 15 canal depth (-PIPELINE TRAVERSE STATION -OUTLET TRAVERSE STATION D = Pipeline diameter,feet
,,-CANAL AHe = Energy loss from pipeline to
FLOW
canal (outlet flows) or canal
to pipeline (inlet flows) feet,
water.
6

*FIGURE 8.-Velocity distributions and loss factors, 12- by 24-inch closed-conduit transition with divider pier, horizontal pipeline.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS
FIGURE 9.—Air model facilities for testing closed-conduit
transitions. Air was drawn from the atmosphere, through
the measuring orifice, and then through the outlet transition.
into the expanding transition being tested, and
back into the atmosphere. The 10.14-inch-
diameter pipeline was 63 inches long (6.2 D) for
most of the tests, and was lengthened to 207
inches (20.4 D) for the remaining tests. A
piezometer located 44 inches from the outlet
was used with the 6.2 D-long pipe, and
two diametrically opposed wall taps located 1
diameter from the outlet were used with the
20.4 D-long pipe.
Five expanding transitions made of light-gage
sheet metal were tested (Figs. 9 and 10). All had
inlets 10.14 inches in diameter, and all were 10.14
inches high at the outlet. The sidewalls expanded
11
at the rates of 0 0, 2%°, 5 0, 7%°, and 10 0 relative
to the centerline, and the lengths were 20.28
inches, or 2 D. Piezometers were placed along
the centerline of the right sidewall and along the
invert, and also along the diverging transition
element from the 45 0 point above the invert of the
circular inlet to the lower righthand corner at the
rectangular outlet (Fig. 11F). The piezometers
were at stations 2, 5, 10, and 15 inches from the
transition inlet.
Vertical and horizontal centerline traverses were
obtained near the transition inlets and at the
outlets with a 3i-inch-diameter Prandtl-type pitot-
static tube. Pressures were measured with water-
filled U-tubes, and the readings were recorded in
tenths and hundredths of an inch. Readings were
taken after sufficient time had elapsed for condi-
tions to stabilize after starting the flow. The
pitot-static tube was set at the desired position,
the pressures read, and the tube moved to the
next position. This process was repeated until the
full effective length of the relatively short tube
was within the conduit. The tube was then re-
moved and inserted in the diametrically opposite
station so the full length of each traverse could
be covered. In addition to readings obtained with
the pitot-static tube, readings were taken of the
head differential across the 9-inch-diameter inlet
orifice on the 12 -inch inlet line to the blower, and
at the wall taps in the 10.14-inch supply pipe.
The barometric pressure and temperature were
also measured so atmospheric densities could be
computed.
12 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 3:3
12 Gage Inlet Flange to match 10"pipe
22 Gage Sheet Metal
Gage Outlet Flange 2" wide
10.14 I.D. Pipe 6.2 and
20.4 diameters long__

—›— FREE DISCHARGE TO ATMOSPHERE

FROM CENTRIFUGAL BLOWER

ELEVATION
TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT

20.28
FLOW

PLA N SECTION 8—B

PLA N SECTION A—A

NO DIVERGENCE DIVERGENCE A
A 2/1 . 27 /1 1.50
2
(On Each Side)
(On Each Side)

s,
CO
LC;

PLA N SECTION D—D

PLAN SECTION C—C

I° 42/'
50 DIVERGENCE AV r 7 2 2 DIVERGENCE
7- I .94
94
A, ' On Each Side)
(On Each Side)

20.28"
—(1
FLOW

PLA N SECTION E—E

10° DIVERGENCE A 24 2.17

(On Each Side)

FIGURE 10.—Closed—conduit transitions tested on air model.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 13
-0.6 -0.6

0.-5 -0.5 PIPELINE

HEADATPIEZOME TE R
PI PELINE
-0.4 -0.4
TRANSITION

au.
L OUTLET
OUTL ET

0-

TRANS' T1ON

-0.1 - 0.1

12 16 20 -04 0 04 08 12 II 20
-04 0 04 08
DISTANCE FROM INLET DISTANCE FROM INLET
INLET DIAMETER INLET DIAMETER

A. 10.14 x 10.14" OUTLET (0 0 ) B. 11.14" x 11.91" OUTLET (2 1/2 0 )

- 0.6
-0.6
--0- .

--0- - 0.5
-0.5
PIPELINE
‘
ATPIEZO ME TE R

PIPELINE ,.. \
\
-0.4 ?, -0.4

OUTLET
11
1 OUT

r_g -0.3 3 -0.3

\ 0 \\

\
‘
.`2
-0.2
-0.2

TRANSITION ‘ ,
TRANSITION K
.4
-0.1
-0.1
N.
,
''''....,

_ 1 E.0
-04 0 04 08 I.E 0 -04 0 04 08
DISTANCE FROM INLET DISTANCE FROM INLET
INLET DIAMETER INLET DIAMETER
0
C. 10.14 x 13.69" OUTLET (5° ) D. 10.14 x 15.4 8" OUTLET (7 1/2 )

-0.6

-0-
- 0.5

PIPELINE
ATP IEZOME TE R

EXPLANATION
Of sidewall
2, -0.4 0
- 45 Element
- E Of bottom
Divergence angle measured
relative to conduit
-0.3 centerline
12 Piezometers in each
transition
OUTLET
-0.2
PIEZOMETER STATIONS:

TRANSITION
10! 14
0.1973 D

- 0.1 0.493 D
10!14

10.14
= 0.986 D
15
- I 480 D
10.14

-04 0 04 0.8 12 16 20
SECTION AA
DISTANCE FROM INLET
INLET DIAMETER F. TYPICAL P1EZOMETER LOCATiONS
E. 10.14" x 17.30" OUTLET (100 )

FIGURE 11.-Wall pressures on closed-conduit transitions 'used as outlets. Approach pipe 6.2 D long. Air model tests.
Investigation
Open-Channel Transitions
A number of open broken-back transitions were
tested to determine the effect of upward slope of
the invert, rate of sidewall divergence, degree of
submergence over the outlet pipe crown, and slope
of the incoming pipeline on energy losses and
scour in the canal channel (Figs. 4, 5, and 12
through 19). In addition, the effect of placing
humps on the transition invert to aid in spreading
the flow, and the effects of other modifications
such as changing the sidewalls to modified warped
walls were tested. For convenience, these designs,
operating conditions, and test results are briefly
summarized in Figure 20. Loss factors for all the
broken-backed transitions, including the ones
modified with warped surfaces, were about 0.5 to
0.7 Mt, for outlet flows. The term Ah, equals the
velocity head in the pipeline 1 diameter upstream
from the transition, minus the velocity head in
the canal 15 feet downstream from the transition.
The flow patterns through all the open transi-
tions were generally similar. If the inlet pipe
entered the transition horizontally, the stream
issuing from it tended to move straight through
the transition into the canal, and large eddies
moved upstream well up into the transition
along either side of the jet (Fig. 12A). Scour o
the canal bottom and on the side slopes wa
appreciable in the loose sand and a sandbar wa
built up across the canal 6 to 12 feet downstrea
from the canal entrance (Fig. 12B).
If the inlet pipeline was sloped, the strea 1111,
issuing from it rose in the transition to the wate
surface to cause higher surface velocities and wave
that scoured the canal slopes (Fig. 5A). Flo
was nearly stagnant at the bottom of the transitio
and, in some cases, sand was deposited in th
transition. A wide sandbar built up several fee
downstream from the canal entrance (Fig. 5B).
Changes in the slope of the transition inver
from a minimum of 1 to 13.1 to a maximum o
1 to 5.5 had no apparent effect on the losses en
countered or on the scour produced (Figs. 5, 1
through 19, and 20). Likewise, changes in diver
gence angles of the outer walls of the transitions
from the minimum of 16 0 per side to a maximum
of 30 0 per side had no appreciable effect, although
15
16 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

A. Flow is confined mainly to passage center.

Eddies occur at sides. Q--=3.0 c.f.s.,
Vp=3.8 f.p.s., canal depth=1.5 D.

B. Scour after 45 minutes operation. Q=3.0 C. Scour after 75 minutes operation with hump.
c.f.s., Vp=3.8 f.p.s., depth=1.5 D. Q=2.4 c.f.s., Vp=3.0 f.p.s., depth=1.5 D.

FIGURE 12.—Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, broken-back transition, 1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise, inlet pipe
horizontal.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 17

A. The water surface is mildly turbulent.

Q=4.7 c.f.s., V=6.0 f.p.s., depth=1.3 D.

B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Q-4,7 c.f.s., C. Scour after 45 minutes operation with
V,= 6.0 f.p.s., depth =--1.3 D. hood installed in transition. Q=4.7 c.f.s.,
V,— 6.0 f.p.s., depth=1.3 D.

FIGURE 13.—Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, broken-back transition, I to 8 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe
horizontal.
18 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

A. Mildly turbulent water surface. Q=2.4 c.f.s.,

V,=- 3.0 f.p.s., depth= 0.8 D.

A. The water surface is somewhat rough. Q=4.7

c.f.s., V,=6.0 f.p.s., depth=1.3 D.

B. Scour after 25 minutes operation each, with

B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Q=4.7 c.f.s., flow velocities in pipeline of 2, 2.5, and 3 f.p.s.,
V= 6.O f.p.s., depth=1.3 D. depth= O.8 D.

Fi GURE 14.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet FIGURE 15.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet
flows, broken-back transition, I to 8 slope, 12-inch rise flows, 80° broken-back transition, 4-inch rise, inlet pipe
inlet pipe on 2 to 1 slope. horizontal.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 19

A. Turbulent water surface. Q=2.4 c.f.s., Vp=3.0

A. Mildly turbulent water surface. Q=2.4 c.f.s., f.p.s., depth=0.8 D.
Vp=3.0 f.p.s., depth=0.8 D.

B. Scour after 30 minutes operation each at flow B. Scour after 30 minutes operation each at flow
velocities in pipeline of 2, 2.5, and 3 f.p.s., velocities in pipeline of 2, 2.5, and 3 f.p.s.,
depth=0.8 D. depth--0.8 D.

FIGURE 16.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet FIGURE 17.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, ou let
flows, 25° broken-back transition, 4-inch rise, inlet pipe flows, 25° broken-back transition 4-inch rise, inlet p pe
horizontal. on 2 to I slope.
2C ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

the broken-back walls was not significantly

effective.
Different submergences above the crown of the
pipe at its juncture with the transition showed
little effect in early tests. More detailed investi-
gations with the 20°, 25°, and 30° broken-back
transitions showed lowest losses with small sub-
mergences, and progressively higher losses with
submergences exceeding about 0.1 pipe diameter
(Fig. 21A).
Several "humps" were placed on the transition
invert a short distance downstream from the pipe
exit to help spread the floe and obtain smoother
conditions with more uniform velocities at the
canal entrance (Figs. 4, 12C, 22B, and 22C).
Improvements in flow conditions and reductions
in scour occurred, but the losses were either
unaffected or increased. The usefulness of humps
appeared to be restricted to reducing scour in the
A. Scour after 23 hours, V D --2, 2.5, and 3 f.p.s., canal.
canal depths of 8, 10, and 12 inches. Pipeline A qualitative measurement of riprap needed to
horizontal.
control scour in the canal was obtained by placing
a 4-inch-thick layer of 13-inch gravel in the first
6 feet of the model canal. Tests were made with
the 1 to 8 slope, 6-inch rise transition with warped
walls, and a horizontal inlet pipeline (Fig. 19).
A flow velocity of 3 feet per second in the pipeline
failed to move any gravel or any appreciable
amount of sand in the bed downstream. A
velocity of 4 feet per second also failed to move
the rock and moved only a very small amount of
sand. At a pipeline velocity of 6 feet per second,
the rock remained stable, but considerable erosion
occurred in the sand farther downstream (Fig.
19C). It was apparent that this 13-inch rock
was capable of protecting the model canal from
scouring tendencies. By geometric scaling, this
rock is equivalent to 0.125 times the pipe diameter.
No tests were made with rocks of other sizes.
Noticeable reductions in head loss, improve-
ments in flow distribution, and reduction in scour
were achieved when closed-conduit expanding
B. Scour after 2% hours, V D -2, 2.5, and 3 f.p.s., sections were used in conjunction with the open
canal depths of 8, 10, and 12 inches. Pipeline on transitions. A short submerged shelf projecting
2 to 1 slope, depth--0.8 D. downstream from the transition headwall just
above the pipeline crown in a 1 to 8 sloping
CURE 18.—Scour patterns, outlet flows, 20° broken-back
transition (Fig. 20) cut the loss factor from about
transition, 4-inch rise, 20-inch canal invert.
0.6 to less than 0.5. A longer hood that created
lilmited data show a slightly lower loss for a 25'; a 4 D-long closed conduit within a 1 to 8 transition
atagle. Even altering the outer walls by con- (Fig. 13C) and had a maximum divergence rate
structing warped surfaces within the confines of of 8Y2 ° per side reduced the loss factor to 0.21. A
 NSITIONSFOR SMALL A AL
YD 'A LIC DE SIG NOFTRA

%MIME
0

-
L es ur afte
eci
C)
 1,3
ta3
SUBMERGENCE PLOW CANAL CLOSED TRANS ITION INLt I LOSS OU1 LET LOSS
DESCRIPTION RISE OF OUTLET DEPTH INVERT CONDUIT PIPE LINE FACTOR FACTOR SCOUR
CROWN LENGTH
IN CANAL WIDTH SECTION K. K
Broken -Back, 18 upward slope 1.00D 1.300 1.300 1.00D - 8 00 0 HORIZONTAL - 0.66 EXTENSIVE
Same trans. ,with long hood to confine flow YES - 0.21 EXTENSIVE
*Modified Warp, 1.8 ypward slope " .. .. - „
- 0.67 EXTENSIVE
Broken -Back, 118 upward slope II
" - 2:1 SLOPE - 0.66 MODERATE
Broken -Back , i:8 upward slope 0.50D 0.80D 1.30D I COD - 4.00D HORIZONTAL - 0.66 EXTENSIVE
Some trans., pyramid hump on floor - 0.76 MODERATE
.. II II II II II
*Modified Warp ,1:8 upward slope -. 0.56 EXTENSIVE
Same trans., short hood over pipe outlet " .. .. " " o
YES - 0.47 EXTENSIVE
Same trans., 12" round to 12"square pipe trans. " " .. ,,
' YES (4.0 + 1.5) D - 0.34 MODERATE
Same trans. ,I2" round to 12" square pipe trans. .. " , n n
YES (4.0 + 3.0) p - 0 37 MODERATE
II II
*Modified Warp, 1:8 upward slope " .. 4.00D 2:1 SLOPE 0.67 EXTENSIVE
-

Broken - Back ,I.8 upward slope 0.380 0.68D 1.300 1.00 D - 3.000 2:1 SLOPE 0.34 0.87 1' EXTENSIVE
20.Broken -Back, :13.1 upward slope 0.33 0 0 0.670 1.670 - 4.350 HORIZONTAL - 0.59 EXTENSIVE
20° Broken -Back, :13.1 upward slope 0.17 D 0.830 - 0.43 0.61 EXTENSIVE
„ ,, ,,
20.Broken - Back, :13.1 upward slope 0.330 I 000 - 0.47 0.75 EXTENSIVE
20° Broken -Back, :13.1 upward slope " ,. - ..
0 0.670 21 SLOPE 0.791- 0.62 EXTENSIVE
20° Broken -Back, :13.1 upward slope " 0.17 D 0.830 " .
- 0.65 0.63 EXTENSIVE
20° Broken -Back, :13.1 upward slope .. " ., •
0.330 LOOD - 9.66 0.67 EXTENSIVE
25 .Broken -Back , :10.2 upward slope 0.330 0 0.670 1.67 D - 3.39 D HORIZONTAL - 0.44 EXTENSIVE
25° Broken -Back, :10.2 upward slope 0.17 D 0.830 - 0.40 0.49 EXTENSIVE
25. Broken-Back, 110.2 upward slope ' .. ., ..
0.330 1.000 - 0.47 0.65 EXTENSIVE
25° Broken -Back , 110.2 upward slope ., .,
-0.17 D 0.500 - 2' I SLOPE 0.22t - EXTENSIVE
25.Broken -Back, I 10.2 upward slope ,,
0 0.67 0 - " 0.51 0.45 EXTENSIVE
25° Broken -Back, 110.2 upward slope " 0.170 0.830 .. " .
- 0.52 0.47 EXTENSIVE
25. Broken - Back, 1.10.2 upward slope " 0.330 1.00 D " - 0.53 0.59 EXTENSIVE

30. Broken -Bock, :8.3 upward slope 0 330 0 0.670 1.67 D - 2 750 HORIZONTAL - 0.61 EXTENSIVE
30° Broken -Back, :8.3 upward slope 0.170 0.830 - 0.30 0.63 EXTENSIVE
30" Broken -Back, :8.3 upward slope . " , ,,
0.33D 1.00 D - 0.37 0.71 EXTENSIVE
30* Broken -Back, :8.3 upward slope ,,
0 0.670 - 2:1 SLOPE 0.75+ 0.62 EXTENSIVE
30° Broken -Back, :8.3 upward ,, ,,
slope 0.17 D 0.830 - ' 0.62 0.63 EXTENSIVE
„ II II
30° Broken -Back, :8.3 upward slope " 0.330 1.000 - 0.55 9.70 EXTENSIVE

B-B,15.5 slope,with 12"round to lex 4" rect. i 000 1.30D 1.300 I 000 YES 15.5 + 2.0) 0 HORIZONTAL - 0.39 EXTENSIVE
Same trans ,with 61" hump on floor YES - 0.42 LIGHT
Some transition, no hump • " " " .
YES 2:1 SLOPE - 0.21 MODERATE
,,
B-B, level, with 12" round to 12% 18i" rect. 0 0.300 " YES - 0.15 LIGHT

Closed conduit ,12"round to 12. 28" rect. 0.33D -0.170 0.830 1.67 D YES 600 D HORIZONTAL 0.38 0.10 MODERATE
Closed conduit, 12" round to lex 28" rect. 0 1.000 YES 0.39 0.10 MODERATE
'ONHdVel OONOVgON1d33N ION3

II II II
Closed conduit, 12" round to 12% 28" rect. 0.25 0 1.250 YES 0.41 0.11 MODERATE

Closed conduit, 12" round to 12"x 24" rect. 0.330 -0.170 0.830 I.670 YES 6.00D HORIZONTAL 0.36 0.08 MODERATE
Closed conduit, 12" round To 12"x 24" rect. 0 i 00 0 YES 0.38 006 MODERATE
Closed conduit, 12" round to lex 24" rect. ,. ° ,,
0250 I 250 YES 0.37 0.12 MODERATE
Closed conduit, with center pier " -0.17 D 0.83D ' „
YES 0.43 0.08 MODERATE
„
Closed conduit, with center pier " 0 1,000 " YES 0.44 0.11 MODERATE
Closed conduit, with center pier " ,,
0.250 1.250 YES 0 45 0 14 MODERATE

Closed conduit, 12"square to 12"x 24" rect. 0.330 0.250 1.25 0 1.67 D YES 6.00 0 HORIZONTAL 0.51 0.23 MODERATE
Closed conduit, 12" square to 12"x 24" rect. 0 1.000 , YES 0.50 0.20 MODERATE
„ II ,.
Closed conduit, 12"square to lex 24" rect. -0.170 0.830 YES 0.50 0.20 MODERATE

D= Pipeline diameter = 12"

* Warped surfaces constructed within confines
of broken back transition using straight
wall top and straight intersection of floor
as screed guides.
t Doubtful value
Ah = vp 2/29- vc,2g where Vp and vp are the 0/A velocities in the pipeline and canal , respectively
K = Lo5 5/6h For outlets , Loss is ( hp + V4 9 ) - (he + vc,,g)
For inlets ,Loss is (Iic + vc,29)- (hp + VA/22 )-pipeline loss to pipe
measuring station

FIGURE 20.- Table of operating conditions and performance characteristics of transitions.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 23
0.7
1 centerline was used. Thus, the height of the
30 ° TRANSITION
transition at the outlet was the same as at the
........ ....... ..r....
....
e........."......'n*.- inlet and equal to the diameter of the pipelin
20° TRANS I11
LT- 0.6 All divergence in the closed-conduit transitior4s
7.'
0
0
25 ° TRANSITION.-- , •• occurred through divergence of the sidewalls an
.• through the change in section from circular inle s
0.5
to square or rectangular outlets.
0.1 0.2 0.3 04
SUBMERGENCE FACTOR, C Each transition was first tested on the 6.2-
A. BROKEN BACK TRANSITIONS - OUTLET FLOWS diameter-long approach pipe, and velocity tra
0.2
I
erses were taken horizontally and vertically at t e
12" X 24 WITH DIVIDING PIER -------,...
......2%.-• ..." 1 inlet and outlet (Fig. 23). There was a sligl4t
.....•
0
..... ......
.••••••••""
2" X 28" TRANSITION
0 distortion in the inlet velocity profile with t e
........ ."'"".... :-
E .4.:/_y
........•**
........: round-to-square transition, and the distortio
0 24" TRANSITION
became progressively greater as transition e
u-, pansion increased. The outlet profiles showeF1
that the flow expanded well and followed the
0.1 0.2 03
diverging walls in the 0 0 , 2%°, and 5° transitio s
-0.1 0
SUBMERGENCE FACTOR, C
B. 6D-LONG, CLOSED CONDUIT TRANSITIONS - OUTLET FLOWS and also followed the walls, but to a lesser exte t
0.5
K
1
. lie _
1
SUBMERGENCE
in the 734° transition. The 10° diverging section
PIPE DIAMETER
was too abrupt, and flow broke away from t e
Ui
12"X 24 WITH DIVIDING PIER - right side and the upper and lower right come
E 0.4
Ui -- so that reverse flow occurred.
.....
----Ie X 28" TRANSITION
--.-........,
The somewhat distorted velocity distribution 4t
•
"----12" X 24 TRANSITION the transition inlets apparently had appreciable
0.3
-01 0 0.1 02 00 effect upon the ability of the flow to follow t e
SUBMERGENCE FA GTOR , expanding boundaries. A 12-foot extension w
C. 6D-LONG, CLOSED CONDUIT TRANSITIONS - INLET FLOWS
added to the approach pipe to produce a section
FIGURE 21.—Effect of submergence on loss coefficients— 20.4 diameters long and obtain a more fully d
N1= 0.71, Vz,=4.0 f.p.s. veloped and uniform distribution. Tests will
the 00 divergence transition showed nearly sy
short closed-conduit transition from the 12-inch
metrical velocity distributions at both the inlet
circular pipe to a 12-inch square section, inserted
and outlet (Fig. 24A). However, tests with the
in the pipeline just ahead of the rectangular 1 to
10 0 transition showed ,noticeable velocity dip-
8 broken-back transition, reduced the 0.6 loss
tortion in the horizontal traverse at the inlet,
factor to less than 0.4. It was apparent that the apparently due to the severe separation along the
best opportunities for improving transition per-
right side of the outlet. This separation $s
formance lay in closed-conduit, gradually expand- greater than the separation that occurred with the
ing sections. short approach pipe. It was concluded that rp-
gardless of the uniformity of approach conditions,
Closed-Conduit Transitions—Air Model Tests the 10 0 transition was too abrupt to control the
To determine the performance of a series of ex- discharging flow.
panding closed-conduit transitions, air model tests Pressures were subatmospheric at the approach
were made (Figs. 9 and 10). The shapes of the pipe wall taps just upstream from the transitions.
transitions were selected after considering design This was expected and is due to recovery of head,
problems involved in coupling them with open- wherein the velocity head of the entering stream s
type, but shortened, transitions. To avoid ex- converted into pressure head as the flow expan s
cavations deeper than for present structures, no and slows. The pressure level into which t
downward divergence relative to the centerline transitions discharge is atmospheric, and hence t e
was used. Similarly, to avoid lowering the struc- pressures in the approach conduit and upstreatn
ture to maintain submergence over the crown of )
parts of the transitions where the flow is fast will
the conduit, no upward divergence relative to the be less than atmospheric. The extent of the su -
2, • ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

- ‘44:iX1":"t
4 ii:
I': •
•

A. A hump occurs in the water surface

above the Design 2, hump-like de-
flector on the floor. Q=4.7 c.f.s.,
V=6.0 f.p.s., canal depth=1.3 D.

B. Scour after 1 hour operation 64-inch-high C. Scour after 1 hour operation 33/8-inch-high
deflector. Q=4.7 c.f.s., V=6.() f.p.s. deflector. Q=4.7 c.f.s., V1,=6.0 f.p.s.

IGURE 22.—Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet flows, combination closed-conduit and broken-back transition with
floor deflector, 1 to 5.5 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS
1.0 LEFT TOP
1.0 10 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
06 0.6 0.6 a 0.6
t /L L/L L/L
04 0.4 0.4 0.4

02 0.2 0.2 0.2

008 RIGHT

0.9 10
TOM
008 1
10 I2 I4 008 0.9 1.0
1
11 008 1.0 1.2 14
YVAVG. (ENTRANCE) / 'AVG (EXIT)
VA,
V/VAVG. (ENTRANCE) YVAVG.(EXIT)
A. 10.14" x 10.14" OUTLET (0°) B. 10.14" x 11.91" OUTLET (2 1/2° )

1.0 10 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6 06 a

L/L VL
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
04
0.2
HI
008 09 10 11 008 10 12 14 008 09 10 008 (2
1
1.0
VVAVG (ENTRANCE) V/VAVG. (EXIT) V/VAVG. (ENTRANCE) /VAVG. (EXIT) V

C. 10.14" x 13.69 OUTLET (5° ) D. 10.14 x 15.48" OUTLET (7 1/2°)

1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 EXPLANATION
--.---Horizontal traverse
-.-Vertical traverse
0.6 0.6 Inlets of all transitions 10.14 Diameter
Divergence angle is measured relative
L to the conduit centerline.
0.4
0.2

0.9 I0 II 008 10 I2 14 16
V/ t,
(ENTRANCE) V/VAVG. (EXIT)
E. 10.14 x 17.30" OUTLET ((0° )

FIGURE 23.-Velocity distribution for closed-conduit transitions used as outlets, approach pipe 6.2 D long. Air model test
26 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

TOP TOP

BOTTOM BOTTOM

0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

\//v \qv
" AVG. " AVG.
ENTRANCE EXIT

A. 10.14" x 10.14" OUTLET (0 0 )

0
LEFT • • TOP LEFT TOP
•
•
0.2 •
•
• •
• •

0.4 y
••
•
V
• t;
0.6 ••
• •
. •
• •
0.8 • .
•
• •
RIGHT • •
• •
• BOTTOM B OTT 0 M
1.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
V/
/V
AVG. Y/V AvG.
ENTRANCE EXIT
B. 10.14" x 17.30" OUTLET (100 )
Inlets of both transitions 10.14" diameter
o — Horizontal traverse
O — Vertical traverse

FIGURE 24.— Velocity distribution for closed-conduit transitions used as outlets, approach pipe 20.4 D long. Air model tests.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 27
atmospheric pressure level is a direct measure of outlet of the 0.0 transition (Fig. 11). The pressures
the amount of head recovery, or effectiveness of the at a given station became generally more negative
expanding transition. The pressure head at the as the rate of transition divergence increased, until
inlet divided by the inlet velocity head, produced the 10° transition was approached and the trend
dimensionless parameters which were plotted reversed. Flow separation occurred in this transij
against degrees of sidewall divergence (Fig. 25A). tion, and the effectiveness and efficiency dropped
below that of the 732° transition. In all cases, the
lowest pressures were obtained on the transition
-0.6
element leading from a 45° point on the circula
1- - 0.5 inlet to an outlet corner. These elements diverg
Ui
more rapidly than any others in the transitions.
-0.4
For comparative purposes, plots of cross-sec
Ui
o -62 DIAMETER -LONG APPROACH PIPE
tional areas versus distance along the transition are
A - 20.2 DIAMETER - LONG APPROACH PIPE presented for the transitions tested and for coni
-0.2

0 transitions (Fig. 26).

>j -0.1

4 6 10
SIDEWAL DIVERGENCE RELATIVE TO (DEGREES)
!3
A. DRAFTHEAD AT INLETS VS. RATE OF EXPANSION FLOW

o°
0.8 ui 1.4
Ui
u. FLOW 10.1

0 -6 2 DIAMETER -LONG .APPROACH PIPE

'et' 1.2
A-202 DIAMETER-LONG APPROACH PIPE TRANSITION HEIGHT.10.14" IN ALL GASES
I UI 1.0 - INLET DIAMETER - 10.14"
0.7 i I I I I
PLAN VIEWS
,.. HEAD DROP FROM TOTAL INLET HEAD TO ATHOS
VELOCITY HEAD AT INLET
.4 0.8

LT. 0.
0.6

0.4o
2 4 6 12 14 16 18 20 22
DISTANCE LONG TRANSITION Q (INCHES)
A. CIRCULAR-TO-RECTANGULAR T ANSITIONS WITH CONSTANT HEIGHT
0.5
1.8

1.6

04 0 10
2 4 6 8
SIDEWALL DIVERGENCE RELATIVE TO Q (DEGREES)
B. LOSSES VS. RATE OF EXPANSION
Transitions discharge directly into atmosphere
Transition outlets 10.14 Inches high

FIGURE 25.-Draft head at inlet and loss coefficients for

closed-conduit transitions used as outlets. Air model
•
tests. ,

06 _
The greatest head recovery occurred in a transition --AREA OF 10.14" DIAMETER INLET.0.561
DIVERGENCE ANGLE MEASURED
FROM TRANSITION i
with a divergence of 7 0 to 8° and was 55 percent of 0.4 I I
4 6 8 10 12
I
14
I
16
I
18
I
20 22
DISTANCE ALONG TRANSITION (INCHES)
the inlet velocity head. B. CONIC TRANSITIONS
The loss in total head from the transition inlet
to the atmosphere, divided by inlet velocity head, FIGURE 26.-Area curves for constant height, circular-t
rectangular transitions and for conic transitions.
was similarly plotted against sidewall divergence
(Fig. 25B). This loss factor, K, was lowest for a
divergence of 7.5° to 8° and was 44 percent of the Loss coefficients, K, for conic expanding transi
inlet velocity head. The pressures on the transi- tions of 21/2 ° and 7%2° relative to the centerline
tion walls were negative with respect to the outlet and discharging directly into the atmosphere,
head (atmospheric) in all cases except near the were found in previous tests to be 0.273 and 0.499
28 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

Standard 12 F la ng
A 12" Pipe-,

2 Piezometer

PLAN SECTION C-C

24"

2 Piezometer

)0(
SECT ION A -A SECTION B-B

A . 7 1° CLOSED AND 1 , 5.5 SLOPED, 12 INCH RISE OPEN TRANSITION

Standard 12" Flange.,,

A 12" Pipe.

t 4

2 Piezometer Taps/
—9 4 -,
Humps used in ,'
part of tests'

PLAN LARGE HUMP

U--:
k 24" 68,1,"
mlo
66"
',. _
2 Piezometer Taps,

SECTION A-A
SMALL HUMP

B. 7Ie CLOSED AND HORIZONTAL OPEN TRANSITION

2 C. HUMPS

FIGURE 27.—Combination transition using closed-conduit and open-channel broken-back section, with and without humps.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 29
respectively, based on the inlet velocity heads.'
These values show a trend of greater loss with
greater divergence to 7X°, instead of the decreasing
loss shown by the round-to-rectangular transitions.
This difference is explained by a comparison of the
area curves (Fig. 26) that show that conic sections
enlarge much more rapidly than the round-to-
rectangular transitions of the present study, and
indicates that considerable separation, and hence
loss, occurred in the 7X° cone. This separation
was found to exist in the turnout structure conic
transition.

Combination Closed-Conduit and Open- A. Water surface is mildly turbulent in transition,

Channel Transitions but smooth in canal. Q=4.7 c.f.s., Vp= 6.0 f.p.s.,
canal depth=1.3 D.
The relatively high efficiency of the closed-
conduit expanding transitions was partially ex-
ploited by placing 2 D-long, round-to-rectangular
transitions between the end of the circular pipeline
and a shortened and modified broken-back tran-
sition (Fig. 27). The height of the closed tran-
sition was kept the same as the diameter of the
pipe and the sides diverged 7X° relative to the
centerline. The length was 2 D and the outlet
measured 12 inches high by 18% inches wide, with
an area 2.8 times greater than at the inlet. A
5.5 D-long, upwardly-sloping, open-channel tran-
sition adapted the rectangular section to the
trapezoidal section of the canal.
The loss coefficient for outlet flows was about
0.4 with the inlet pipe horizontal, and about 0.2
with it rising on a 2 to 1 slope (Fig. 20). With
the pipe horizontal, waves were smaller and less
powerful than in previous transitions, but scour
remained appreciable (Fig. 28). This was appar-
ently due to flow from the closed pipeline contin-
uing straight through the open transition along B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Q=4.7 c.f.s.,
the floor without appreciable spreading or slowing. V0=6.0 f.p.s., canal depth=1.3 D.
Large back eddies were present at the sides in the FIGURE 28.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, outlet
open transition. Several humps were placed on flows, combination closed-conduit and broken-back transi-
the floor to "lift" this flow stream and help spread tion, 1 to 5.5 slope, 12-inch rise, inlet pipe horizontal.
it. Scour was decreased when a 6%-inch-high
wedge-shaped hump was used, but remained distributed more uniformly across the section
almost unchanged with a 3%-inch one (Figs. 22 upon reaching the canal. Considerable flow was
and 27). Better flow conditions occurred when present along the broken-back transition invert,
the inlet pipe was placed on a 2 to 1 upslope although the greater part of the flow was near the
(Fig. 29). Wave action persisted, but flow was surface. The scour was moderate and the energy
loss coefficient decreased to 0.21.
1 Bureau of Reclamation, "Hydraulic Model Studies of the San Jacinto- Additional tests were made with an open tran-
San Vicente Turnout and Metering Structure, San Diego Aqueduct sition having a horizontal invert (Figs. 27B and
Project, California," Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-365, January
26, 1953. 30). The submergence over the crown of the
 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33
A. Scour after 1 hour. Q=3.1 c.f.s., V= 4.O f.p.s.,
canal depth=1.3 D.
B. Scour after 1 hour. Q=4.7 c.f.s., V=6.0 f.p.s.,
canal depth=1.3 D.
FIGURE 29.—Scour patterns, outlet flows, combination
closed-conduit and broken-back transition, 1 to 5.5 slope,
12-inch rise, inlet pipe on 2 to 1 slope.
closed-conduit outlet for a 15-inch (1,3 D) flow
depth in the canal 'was 0.3 D, as compared. with
1.3 D for the sloped, open transition, The tests
were made with a 2 to 1 sloping pipeline. The
water surface was somewhat choppy, and waves
that were carried into the canal produced moderate
bank erosion. The flow moving downstream
extended completely across the water prism at the
canal entrance, and from the water surface down-
ward to 4 or 5 inches above the canal invert.
The lowest layers of water were not in significant
motion and bottom scour was not apparent. The
loss coefficient decreased to 0.15, possibly due to
the greatly decreased submergence at the outlet
of the closed conduit.
Closed-Conduit Transitions—Hydraulic Tests
The losses of the combined closed-conduit and
open-channel transitions were significantly lower
than for the usual open ones, and scouring was
reduced. Consequently, longer round-to-rectan-
gular closed-conduit transitions that terminated in
a headwall normal to the canal (Fig. 31) were
studied. The water discharged directly through
the headwall into the canal section for outlet flow
tests, and through the headwall into the transition
for inlet flow tests. No further transitioning was
used. The closed-conduit transitions exploited
the fact that more orderly and complete expansion,
and hence slowing of the flow, can be obtained in
closed conduits than can be obtained in the usual
open-type transitions. Ideally, based on the areas
of the inlet and outlet, a two-thirds velocity reduc-
tion can be achieved, and about 90 percent of the
velocity head can be recovered in a closed-conduit
transition 6 diameters long and with a moderate
rate of divergence.
12- by 28-inch Transition.—A closed-conduit
transition having a 12-inch-diameter inlet, a 12-
inch-high by 28-inch-wide rectangular outlet, and
an overall length of 72 inches (6 D) was con-
structed and tested (Figs. 2 and 31A). The transi-
tion sloped upward 4 inches and the top of the
exit was to be level with or slightly beneath the
normal canal water surface. The transition termi-
nated in a vertical headwall placed normal to the
canal; the 12-inch-diameter inlet pipeline was
placed horizontal.
, Relatively good flow conditions occurred near
the headwall and in the canal. Conditions were
similar to those shown in Figure 32. The least
desirable conditions were present at a 15-inch flow
depth (1.25 D), where significant return eddies
occurred along the banks at the water surface near
the headwall. These eddies eroded the canal bank
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 31

slopes noticeably (Figs. 33B and 33C). At a 12-

inoh depth (1.0 D), these eddies were small enough
to be of little consequence and erosion was minor
(Fig. 33A). At a 10-inch depth (0.83 D), the
eddies were not significant, but flow velocities
along the canal banks and invert were higher than
desired and erosion increased. The scours at the
0.83, 1.00, and 1.25 D depths compared favorably
with those of the open and the combination open-
closed transitions.
Loss coefficients for the 12- by 28-inch transi-
tion, when it was used as an outlet, were quite low
and equal to 0.11, 0.09, and 0.11 for canal depths
of 0.83, 1.00, and 1.25 D, respectively (Figs. 6, 20, A. Somewhat turbulent water surfaces occur in the
and 21). Loss coefficients when the transition transition and canal. Q=4.7 c.f.s., 1Tp=6.0 f.p.s.,
was used for inlet service were 0.34, 0.37, and 0.40, canal depth=1.3 D.
respectively. It was apparent ' that 'very low
energy losses were obtained for outlet service, and
that no penalty was incurred in erosion in the canal
or in losses for inlet service.
Detailed studies of the flow conditions were
made by velocity traverses across the inlet pipe-
line and the outlet portal (Fig. 6). The measure-
ments showed undesirable flow separation along
the left side and the corners of the transition when
it was used in outlet service. This indicated
excessive divergence of the flow passage and a
design unnecessarily expensive due to greater
than required width.
12- by 2.4-inch Transition.—A 6 D-long transi-
tion with a 12-inch-diameter inlet and a lesser
divergence rate to a rectangular outlet 12 inches
high by 24 inches wide was constructed (Fig.
31B). When used as an outlet it produced flow
in the canal generally similar to that obtained with
the previous closed transition (Fig. 32). Scour
in the canal was relatively small at all flow veloci-
B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Q=4.7 c.f.s.,
ties and water depths and comparable with the V= 6.O f.p.s., canal depth=1.3 D.
best of the other designs (Figs. 34 and 35). The
loss coefficients decreased to 0.09, 0.07, and 0.11 FIGURE 30.—Flow conditions and scour pattern, out t
for the 0.83, 1.00, and 1.25 D flow depths (Figs. flows, combination closed-conduit and broken-back trans
tion, level invert, inlet pipe on 2 to I slope.
20 and 21). The reduced scour and lower losses
attested to the excellent performance of the
transition in expanding the flow, and velocity. compared very favorably with those of all oth
measurements at the outlet confirmed the con- designs.
clusion (Fig. 7). Field installations might require transitions o
The transition performed satisfactorily when large. that the flat tops near the head wall wou
used as an inlet. Good flow distribution was pose structural problems. This would be le :s
present in the pipeline, and loss coefficients of complicated if the span were cut in half by us
0.35 were determined for canal depths of 1.00 a center supporting wall or pier. To determi e
and 1.25 D (Figs. 7, 20, and 21). These losses the effects of such a pier on the flow and losses,
32 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

FLOW

A,
—I A

SECTION B-B
PLAN

i2" L W Pipe

k---28

SECTION A -A c
- SECTION C-C

A. 12-INCH ROUND TO - 12x 28-INCH RECTANGLE

Divider Wall-,

- 18" - -

SECTION D -D
PLAN

5.-H"

-41
12 L.W. Pipe -,,

SECTION A -A SECTION E-E

B. 12-INCH ROUND TO 12 x24- INCH RECTANGLE

A
7

PLAN SECTION F -F

11"

12 L W. Pipe
X

-24"-
A
G
SECTION A-A SECTION G-G

C. 12 -INCH SQUARE TO 12x24-INCH RECTANGLE

FIGURE 31.—Closed-conduit round-to-rectangular and square-to-rectangular transitions.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 33

A. 0.83 D canal depth.

B. 1.00 D canal depth.

C. 1.25 D canal depth.

FIGURE 32.—Flow conditions, 12- by 24-inch closed-conduit transition, 4 f.p.s. velocity in pipeline, inlet pipe horizontal.
34 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

A. Scour after 2 hours operation. Q=3.1 c.f.s.,

V=4.0 f.p.s., canal depth=1.0 D.

B. Scour after 2 hours operation. V=4.0 f.p.s., C. Scour after 1 hour operation. V=6.0 f.p.s.,
canal depth=1.25 D. canal depth=1.25 D.

FIGURE 33.—Scour patterns, outlet flows, 12- by 28-inch, closed-conduit transition, inlet pipe horizontal.
 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS 35

A. Scour after 1 hour operation. Canal depth= 0.83

D.

B. Scour after 1 hour operation. Canal depth=1.00 C. Scour after 1 hour operation. Canal depth=1.25
D. D.

FIGURE 34.—Scour patterns, outlet flows, 12- by 24-inch, closed-conduit transition, 4 f.p.s. velocity in pipeline, inlet pipe
horizontal.

tests were made with an 18-inch-long pier in the
transition (Figs. 8, 20, 21, and 31). The pier
was 0.2 D thick and had a rounded upstream end
and a blunt face at the downstream end. Its
presence increased the outlet loss coefficients to
0.10, 0.12, and 0.17, and the inlet loss coefficients
to 0.39 and 0.40. A part of this increased loss is
undoubtedly due to the more distorted velocity
distribution that occurred in the tests with the
pier present (Fig. 8). When this increased dis-
tortion was first noted the pier was suspected of
being out of alinement. A check of the alinement
showed it to be satisfactory.
36 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO: 33
designs would perform satisfactorily. Therefore,
a 6 D-long transition with a 12-inch-square inlet
instead of a round one, and a 12- by 24-inch rec-
tangular outlet was tested (Fig. 31C). The loss
coefficients for outlet flows were 0.20,0.20, and 0.23
for depths of 0.83 D, 1.00 D, and 1.25 D. These
values represent about a 100 percent increase over
those obtained with the circular entrance design.
For inlet-type flows, the loss coefficients were
0.50, 0.50, and 0.51 (Fig. 36). These values are
about 25 percent higher than for the circular inlet
A. 1.00 D canal depth. transition.
In terms of actual head loss in a prototype
structure at flow velocities of 8 feet per second, the
outlet losses for the square-to-rectangular transi-
tion are about 0.10 feet of water more than for
the round-to-rectangular design. In many
instances this small additional loss may be
insignificant, and the lesser construction cost of
the square-to-rectangular transition will dictate
its use.

0.2

e>
5._

0I 06 07 0.8
0.3 04 05
FROUDE NUMBER = V/i671

A. LOSSES — VS. FROUDE NUMBER

OUTLET FLOWS

0.7

cr
0.6

---- tr."-
0.5

0.40 3 0.4 05 06 07 OS
FROUDE NUMBER = Viii—ii

B. LOSSES VS. FROUDE NUMBER

C. Erosion after 1 hour, 1.25 D depth. INLET FLOWS

FIGURE 35.—Flow conditions and scour patterns, outlet 10 canal depth

flows, 12- by 24-inch transition, 6 f.p.s. velocity, inlet 0 12 canal depth

pipe horizontal.
Square Inlet on .12- by 24-inch Transition.—
Consideration of the cost of forms to make round-
to-rectangular transitions led to questioning
whether or not simpler square-to-rectangular
A 15 canal depth
V, = Velocity in pipeline, tIls•
V2 = Velocity in canal, f.p.s.
H = Energy loss from pipeline to canal ( outlet flows)
or canal to pipeline (inlet flows), feet of water.
FIGURE 36.—Loss factors, 12-inch square to 12- by 24-inch
rectangular transition, inlet pipe horizontal.
Conclusions
HE ENERGY LOSSES for conventional, broken-
T back, open-channel transitions discharging
from pipes into small canals is 0.6 to 0.7 times
the difference in velocity heads in the pipe and in
the canal (Fig. 20 and Fig. 37). This velocity
v2 v2
head difference' --'—'
2g 2g' is termed Ahv.
Reasonable changes in angle of divergence of the
sidewalls, of the slope of the invert of the open
transitions, or of the attitude of the inlet pipeline,
had little effect upon energy losses (Figs. 4 and 20).
Outlet losses were reduced to 0.4 Aht, and less
when short, closed-conduit, expanding transitions
were placed between the pipeline and modified,
broken-back transitions (Fig. 27 and Fig. 37).
Outlet losses were reduced to 0.1 Ah, with 6 D-
long closed-conduit transitions having circular
inlets and rectangular outlets, and which dis-
charged directly into the canal through a vertical
headwall placed perpendicular to the canal axis
(Fig. 3A and Fig. 37).
The addition of a dividing pier to decrease the
structural span of the roof near the outlet of the
round-to-rectangular transition increased the losses
to about 0.13 M.
Changing the 6 D-long transition to provide a
square instead of the more difficult to form circul r
inlet increased the outlet losses to 0.20 ,A16,, a d
the inlet losses to 0.50
Outlet losses of existing broken-back transitions
can be materially reduced by installing properly
designed hoods within the structures to form co
trolled, closed-conduit expanding sections (Fi
13C and 20).
Losses for inlet flows were about 0.4 to 0.5 A
for all transitions tested (Fig. 20).
Scour or erosion in the loose sand of the can 1
bed was extensive with conventional, broken-ba k
transitions (Fig. 5 and Figs. 12 through 19).
Selected humps or flow spreaders on the inver s
within open transitions significantly reduced sco r
(Fig. 5 and Figs. 12 through 19). The hum s
tested created a slight increase in head loss.
Scour was not appreciably affected by chang s
in the side-wall divergence or invert slopes of t e
open transitions.
Scour with the combination closed-conduit a d
open-channel transitions was less than for t e
conventional transitions (Fig. 22 and Figs.
through 30).
37
38 ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH NO. 33

1 . 0 D.-- -

Barrel of pipeline attached to

transition:
Loss as an inlet = 0.50[h
Loss as an ,outlett.= 0.656 h v
Scour - moderate to extensive

A. CONVENTIONAL BROKEN - BACK TRANSITION

Pipeline barrel connects to

transition with round - to-
rectangular pipe transition:
Loss as an inlet = 0.40 nhv
Loss as an outlet = 0.40Ahv
Scour - moderate

B. MODIFIED BROKEN - BACK WITH ROUND - TO - RECTANGULAR

TRANSITION BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND PIPELINE

D.->1

6 D - long pipe transition

connects pipeline to
headwall across canal:
Loss as an inlet = 0.40h v
Loss as an outlet = 0.10h
Scour - moderate

C. ROUND - TO - RECTANGULAR PIPELINE TRANSITION

TERMINATING IN HEADWALL

D = Pipeline diameter
2 g VG2/2 g ,
Vp/2
6h = where Vp and Vc are the CVA velocities in
the pipeline and canal, respectively.
Loss/
inh

For outlets, loss is (hp + VF% g ) hc + V

C2 g

For inlets, loss is (hc + v1

/2g - hp VF/ g ) pipeline
loss to measuring station.

FIGURE 37.—Design sheet for small canal transitions.

 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF TRANSITIONS FOR SMALL CANALS
Scour was reduced, in most cases, when the
pipeline to the transition was on a 2 to 1 slope
instead of horizontal.
Scour with the 6 D-long, closed-conduit transi-
tions was about the same as with the combination
transitions, and less than for the conventional
transitions (Figs. 32, 33, 34, and 36).
In general, scour was nominal with flow veloci-
ties of 4 feet per second in the 12-inch-diameter
pipe, and severe with velocities of 6 feet per
second. By scaling to larger structure sizes, ac-
cording to Froude laws, these velocities are
equivalent to 5.7 and 8.5 feet per second for 24-inch
pipe, and 8 and 12 feet per second for 48-inch pipe.
A 4-inch-thick layer of 1X-inch gravel extending
4 feet downstream from the transition of the 12-
inch test installation provided excellent scour pro-
tection at the transition outlet (Fig. 19). Erosion
3
occurred beyond this blanket when the velociti
were high, waves were appreciable, or both.
The optimum divergence of the sides of shor
circular-to-rectangular, constant height, close
conduit transitions is 7X° relative to the cente
line (Figs. 10, 11, 23, 24, and 25). For long :r
transitions the divergence should be decreased I
about 5 0 per side.
For both inlet and outlet flows submergenc s
up to 0.25 D over the crown of the pipeline at i s
junction with the headwall had only modera e
effects upon head losses in the broken-back a
the 6 D-long closed-conduit transitions (Fig. 21
Higher submergences tested in the broken-ba 6,1
transitions further increased the losses. Negati e
submergences down to —0.17 D, which is tant
mount to not having the transition full at tie
headwall, indicated only minor head loss increas s
for outlet flows.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1964 0 - 714-653