HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS

O F CIRCULAR F L U M E
By Zohrab Samani, 1 Saeed Jorat, 2 and Mohammed Yousaf, 3
Associate Member, A S C E
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Laboratory experiments are conducted to evaluate the hydraulic char-

acteristics of several circular flumes. The circular flume is a simple and low-cost
water measuring device constructed from two pieces of pipes, one installed ver-
tically inside the other. The ratio of the diameter of the inner column to the flume
itself is approximately one-third. The presence of the inner column reduces the
cross section of the flow, creating a critical flow condition. A gauge is installed
at the upstream side of the inner column to measure the depth of the water upstream
of the critical flow section. The reading on the gauge is directly related to the flow
rate. The results of the laboratory experiments showed that the circular flumes can
be successfully used to measure the flow rate in open channels. Based on the
results of the laboratory experiments, a computer model is developed for the cal-
ibration of circular flume. The computer model is tested using data from flumes
installed in the laboratory and in the field.

INTRODUCTION

Measuring water in open channels is one of the basic elements of water

conservation. With the increasing demand for improved water management
techniques around the world, there is a serious need for low cost and ac-
curate water measuring devices. Ever since the development of Parshall flume
(Parshall 1926) attempts have been made to simplify the construction and
improve the accuracy of water-measuring devices in open channels. These
attempts resulted in development of the Cutthroat flume (Robinson and
Chamberlain 1960 and Skogerboe et al. 1967) and the Replogle, Bos, and
Clemmens (RBC) flume (Replogle 1975).
This research was based on previous work presented by Hager (1988) that
a cylinder mounted vertically in a circular channel can be used to measure
the discharge. Hager (1988) presented a graphical approach to calibrate the
water-measuring device based on measured values of upstream energy. This
paper replaces the graphical approach with a computer model based on the
measurements of the water depth at the cylinder and eliminates the need for
measuring the upstream energy, thus simplifying the calibration and oper-
ation procedures. The circular flume is a simple device made of two pieces
of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe one installed vertically inside the other
(Figs. 1 and 2). The ratio of the diameter of the inner column to the flume
itself must be approximately one third [0.25 to 0.32, Hager (1988)]. The
presence of the inner column reduces the cross section of the flow, creating
'Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ., Agric., and Geological Engrg., New Mexico State
Univ., Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001.
2
Asst. Engr., City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water and Power, Los Angeles, CA.
3
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ., Agric, and Geological Engrg., New Mexico State
Univ., Las Cruces, NM.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on August 25, 1990.
This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol.
117, No. 4, July/August, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/91/0004-0558/$1.00 +
$.15 per page. Paper No. 26091.

558

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Circular Flume

—- d
Gauge—__^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c

] Critical Flow
>

FIG. 2. Water Profile along Flume

a critical flow condition. A gauge is installed at the upstream side of the

inner column (Fig. 1) to measure the depth of the water upstream of the
critical flow section. The circular flume is an appropriate device for mea-
suring flow through furrows since its circular shape fits very well to the
natural shape of a furrow, reducing the possibility of lateral flow around the
flume. The device has been used successfully in concrete ditches as dis-
cussed herein.
The research consisted of the following steps:
559

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 1. Construction and testing of the physical model.
2. Development of a computer model for flume calibration.

CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING

The device was designed to create a critical flow by reducing the flow
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cross section. A 2-ft (0.61 m) section of PVC pipe was used as a circular
flume and a column pipe was inserted in the center of the channel with a
diameter ratio of roughly one-third. A measuring scale was placed on the
upstream side of the column pipe. A notch was cut in the top of the upstream
side of the channel above the column pipe to make the scale visible (Fig.
1).
Three flumes of nominal sizes 8, 10, and 12 in. (20.3, 25.4, and 30.48
cm) with column pipes of external diameters 2.375, 3.25, and 4.50 in. (6.03,
8.26, and 11.43 cm) were calibrated in the laboratory. The actual dimensions
of the flumes are shown in Table 1. A 14-ft-long (4.270-m-) pipe was se-
lected and divided into four sections. From the upstream side, the first 1-ft
(0.305 m) section was used for coupling with main supply line, and the next
6-ft (2.130 m) section was lined with coarse gravel to simulate a furrow or
unlined canal. The third section was a 2-ft (0.61-m) built-in flume and the
last 5-ft (1.52-m) downstream section led to a measuring tank. A platform
with an accurate slope setting was used to mount the flumes at different
slopes. The flow rate to the approach channel was adjusted by a valve in
the supply line. A metal barrel with 55 gal. (208 L) capacity was used to
collect and measure the volume of water at each flow rate.
The calibration procedure was as follows:

1. The water was directed to the approach channel through the control valve.
2. The flow rate was adjusted to a specific depth at the column pipe and was
allowed to stabilize.
3. The upstream depth was measured at the scale on the column pipe.
4. The flow rate was measured by weighing the barrel and dividing the mea-
sured volume by elapsed time.
5. The experiment was repeated at various flow rates to obtain a series of data
points.

A gate was installed at the downstream end of the pipe to create different
levels of submergence and to measure the effect of submergence on flume
performance. The submergence ratio was defined as the ratio of the down-
stream depth of the water at the gate to the column reading.

TABLE 1. Flow Equation Parameters for 8,10, and 12 in. (20.32, 25.4, 30.48 cm)
Flumes
Flume size Column size Maximum
(cm) (cm) c n R1 submergence (%)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
20.10 6.03 0.0076 2.27 0.99 83.4
25.00 9.05 0.00113 2.59 0.99 81.0
29.50 11.6 0.00087 2.72 0.99 80.0

560

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 RESULTS

The results of column readings were plotted against the measured flow
rates under free flow condition for each flume on a log-log scale. Fig. 3
shows the relationship between column readings and flow rates for the 8-in.
(20.32-cm) flume.
The results show that a generalized flow equation can be developed for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

each flume as follows:

Q = CH" (1)
in which Q = discharge in L/min; H = column reading in mm; and c and
n = calibration coefficients. The coefficients of the calibration equation for
each flume are shown in Table 1.
The maximum level of submergence for free flow operation was measured
for different flumes by adjusting the downstream depth. The submergence
limits varied with the flow rates at each flume. The values shown in Table
1 are the highest submergence ratios measured in each flume. These values
are within the same range as other available flumes like Parshall flume and
RBC.
The effect of sloping installation on flume performance was measured by
changing the flume longitudinal slope. Table 2 shows the error caused by
installation of the circular flume at various slopes. Table 3 shows the error
caused by sloping installation of an 8-in. (20.32-cm) RBC flume in a lab-
oratory experiment reported by Martinez (1988). The comparison shows that
the errors caused by sloping installation of the circular flume are generally
lower than for the RBC flume. The low error values are attributed to the
short distance between the column gauge and the critical flow section.

1000-

100T

CD

o
10r

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I 00
Head (mm)
FIG. 3. Relationship between Column Reading and Flow Rates for 8-in. (20.1-cm)
Flume
561

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 TABLE 2. Error Caused by Sloping Installation of 8 in, (20,32 em) Circular Flume

Slope -1% -2% + 1% +2%

(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
g m „ (L/min) 894 773 485.4 347.84
£?« (L/min) 845.96 712.5 526.9 394.56 ;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Percent error 5.37 7.8 8.55 13.4

Qmb, (L/min) 9.56 10.96 7.67 4.84
Qcsl (L/min) 8.62 9.53 11.5 17.5
Percent error 9.83 13.0 49.9 261

TABLE 3. Error Caused by Sloping Installation of 8-in. (20.32-cm) RBC Flume

(Martinez 1988)

Slope -1% -2% + 1% +2%

(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
Qra„ (L/min) 266.3 270.1 241.3 199.7
Qest (L/min) 233.4 183.1 286.5 283.6
Percent error 12.4 32.2 18.7 42.0
2 m i n (L/min) 34.9 48.1 17.9 23.2
Qesl (L/min) 24.2 25.1 29.9 51.5
Percent error 30.7 47.8 67.0 122.0
Note: Qmm ~ maximum measured flow; Qmin = minimum measured flow; Qca = esti-
mated flow rate from calibration curve at zero slope; and plus and minus slope signs refer
to upward and downward sloping, respectively.

COMPUTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The flow movement through the flume can be defined by the energy equa-
tion and the Froude relationship. Assuming a uniform velocity distribution,
the energy equation upstream of the critical flow section can be written:

£ = 7l + (2)
^
in which E = the energy upstream of the critical flow section; Yx = depth
of the water; Q = flow rate; and A = cross-sectional area of flow upstream
of the critical flow section.
Assuming a level flume, and negligible energy loss between upstream and
the critical flow section, the upstream energy will be equal to the energy at
the critical section and can be described as:

Q2
E = EC = Y + ^— (3)
2gA2c
in which Ec = energy at the critical point; Y = the distance from the surface
of the water at the critical flow section to the flume floor; Q = flow rate;
and Ac = critical flow cross section.
The water reaches the critical flow at the smallest cross section between
the column and the flume. Since critical flow occurs with Froude number

562

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 equal to 1, the critical flow equation can be described as:
Q dA\
— - —f = F 2 = 1 (4)
9A3C \dY)
in which dAc/dY represents the derivative of critical flow cross section with
respect to Y.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Combining (3) and (4) results in:

E = Y+ (5)
dY
A
If a column pipe of diameter d is installed inside a flume of diameter D then
the flow cross section at the critical point, Ac, as a function of Y is:
D2 d-D d2 aD2
Ac = — (2B - 2 • sin B • cos B) - Y- d + (6)
8 2 4 tan a 4
in which:

B = cos-'h - ^ j (7)

a = sin_1(-J (8)

If the upstream energy can be measured, then (4), (5), and (6) can be solved
for Y and Q. The only physical measurement necessary is made at the gauge
that is installed on the upstream side of the column. If the velocity distri-
bution on a cross section of the flow was uniform and the flow lines were
parallel, then the column reading would be equal to upstream energy since
the column acts as a piezometer. However, due to nonuniform distribution
of the velocity and curvature of the streamlines, a relationship needed to be
developed between upstream energy and the column readings. A reference
frame was constructed over the flume and the depth of the water upstream
of the column was carefully measured. Using the measured flow rates and
the upstream depth, the value of the upstream energy was calculated. The
column readings collected from the three aforementioned flumes were plot-
ted against the upstream energy (Fig. 4) and an equation was developed
based on these data to relate the column readings to the upstream energy as
follows:

E = 0.96// R2 = 0.98 (9)

2
in which E = the upstream energy; H = the column reading; and R = the
coefficient of determination.
In using the computer model for flume calibration, the upstream energy
(measured 0.2 m upstream of the column) was assumed equal to energy at
the critical section. By measuring the depth of the water at the column, the
upstream energy can be calculated using (9) and the flow rate can be cal-
culated from (4), (5), and (6). However, since the streamlines at the critical
section are not parallel, (4) and (5) do not adequately describe the nature of

563

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 25

20 -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

15

w
10 -

E = 0.96H, R2 = 0.98

10 15 20 25
Column (cm)

FIG. 4. Relationship between Column Reading and Upstream Energy

the flow and the calculated flow rate should be multiplied by a correction
factor. This problem is described in detail by Hager (1988). To calculate
this correction factor, a dimensionless curve was developed by plotting the
relative critical energy versus the relative discharge as is shown in Fig. 5.
These data were based on the measurements made on the three flumes men-
tioned in Table 1. An equation was developed based on the data in Fig. 5
using the least-squares technique as follows:
Qm E
= 1.057 + 0.2266 - , R2 = 0.8 (10)
Qc D

1.25

1.20

A A -(P
1.15

11.10
o .**

1.05
Qm/Qo - 1.057 + 0.2266E/D, R2 - 0.8
1.00
0.95
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
E/D

FIG. 5. Relationship between Relative Energy (E/D) and Relative Flow Rate (Qm/
Qc)

564

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 TABLE 4. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Flow Rates in Four Circular
Flumes
D (cm) d (cm) H (cm) Qm (L/min) Qc (L/min) Percent error
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
20.1 6.03 3.50 22.9 23.80 3.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20.1 6.03 4.45 44.5 43.70 1.8

20.1 6.03 5.60 78.0 76.32 2.2
20.1 6.03 6.8 121.8 120.36 1.18
20.1 6.03 9.3 237.0 244.23 3.0
20.1 6.03 13.1 501.6 510.20 1.7
20.1 6.03 14.9 666.0 665.05 0.1
20.1 6.03 18.5 1,026.0 1,019.50 0.6
25.0 8.10 4.55 39.50 40.90 3.5
25.0 8.10 5.75 74.70 75.2 0.7
25.0 8.10 6.8 111.6 114.2 2.3
25.0 8.10 7.6 144.0 149.5 3.8
25.0 8.10 8.55 190.0 197.9 4.1
25.0 8.10 10.5 312.4 318.5 1.9
25.0 8.10 13.0 512.1 513.6 0.3
25.0 8.10 14.2 613.2 622.7 1.5
25.0 8.10 15.5 770.0 751.5 2.5
25.0 8.10 16.5 855.0 857.8 0.3
45.0 15.50 7.8 149.8 141.0 5.9
45.0 15.50 9.4 247.5 234.0 5.5
45.0 15.50 14.6 760.0 712.0 6.3
45.0 15.50 23.2 2,154.0 2,086.0 3.2
45.0 15.50 24.5 2,459.0 2,355.0 4.2
134.6 49.53 40.6 6,971.0 6,893.0 1.1
134.6 49.53 55.88 15,949.0 15,294.0 4.1
134.6 49.53 66.04 23,056.0 22,461.0 2.6
134.6 49.53 73.66 29,619.0 28,657.0 3.2

in which Qm = measured flow rate; Qc = calculated flow rate based on (4)

and (5); and E and D = upstream energy and diameter of the flume, re-
spectively.
A slightly different equation was developed by Hager (1988), using a sin-
gle 0.48-m-diameter flume as follows:
Qm E
= 0.985 + 0.205 - (11)
Qc D
A computer model was developed using (4), (5), (6), (9), and (10). The
purpose of the computer model was to calibrate any size flume without hav-
ing to go through laborious laboratory calibration. Data were collected on
three laboratory flumes and one large-scale flume installed in the field, and
the results of measured flow rates were compared with those calculated by
the computer model. The comparison is shown in Table 4. The last flume
in Table 4 was constructed from a 54-in. (1.37-m) corrugated pipe and was
installed in a concrete ditch by staff at the Elephant Butte Irrigation District
in Las Cruces, N.M., and the flow rates were measured using a propeller
meter (Blair, personal communication, 1990).

565

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.

 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A simple water measuring device is described. The maximum submer-

gence limit was measured at 80%. The potential error by nonlevel instal-
lation was measured and was considerably lower than a comparable flume.
A computer model was developed for the calibration of the circular flume.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The results of computer calibration were compared with measured data for
three flumes in the laboratory and one flume in the field. The computer
model predicted the measured flow rates with a maximum error of 6%.
In Table 4, the data from the first flume (D = 2 0 . 1 , d = 6.03) were used
in the calibration of the model. The rest of the data were independent.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Hager, W. H. (1988). "Mobile flume for circular channel." J. Irrig. Drain. Div.,
ASCE, 114(3), 520-534.
Martinez, C. A. (1988). "The application of circular RBC flumes in furrow flow
measurement," thesis presented to Utah State University, at Logan, Utah, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
Parshall, R. L. (1926). "The improved Venturi flumes." Trans., ASCE, 89, 841-
880.
Replogle, J. A. (1975). "Critical flow flumes with complex cross section." Proc.
ASCE Irrig. Drain. Div. Spec. Conf., ASCE, Aug. 13-15, 336-338.
Robinson, A. R., and Chamberlain, A. R. (1960). "Trapezoidal flumes for open
channel flow measurement." Trans., American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
3(2), 120-124 128.
Skogerboe, G. V., Bennett, R. S., and Walker, W. R. (1972). "Generalized dis-
charge relations for cutthroat flumes." J. Irrig. Drain. Div., ASCE, 98(4), 569-
583.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = cross-sectional area of flow;

Ac = cross-sectional area of flow at critical point;
c = discharge calibration coefficient;
D = flume diameter;
d = diameter of column pipe;
E = upstream energy;
g = gravity;
H = column reading;
n = discharge calibration coefficient;
Q = discharge rate;
Qc = calculated flow by computer model;
Ges. = estimated flow from calibration curve;
Qm = measured flow;
t^max = maximum discharge;
>£min = minimum discharge;
2
R = coefficient of determination;
Y = distance from surface of water to flume floor;
=
a angle representing area between bottom of column pipe and flume;
and
0 = angle representing flow depth.

566

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1991.117:558-566.