Experimental Study of roughness coefficient in smooth and corrugated drainage pipes with envelop and non-envelope

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University , Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

Roughness coefficient is an effective factor on water velocity and discharge in drain pipes. Roughness coefficient in experimental box model with dimensions of 100×41×56cm was evaluated with two pipes of smooth and corrugated in a diameter of 63 and 56mm by three series of independent tests. The first set was done on pipes with mineral envelop, the second set on pipes with synthetic materials and the third one on pipes without envelop. The mean values of "n" Manning’s in the smooth pipe with synthetic and mineral envelope and non-envelop materials were measured 0.0106, 0.0111, 0.011, and for the corrugated pipe 0.0088, 0.009, 0.0091. The mean values of "n" Ganguillete-Kutter’s in the smooth pipe with synthetic and mineral envelop and non-envelop materials were obtained 0.0048, 0.0048, 0.0048, and for the corrugated pipe 0.0041, 0.0042, 0.0042. The "n" values from the Reynolds-Darcy Weissbach combination formula in the smooth pipe with synthetic and mineral envelop and non-envelop materials were calculated to be 0.0050, 0.0050, 0.0049 and for the corrugated pipe 0.0048, 0.0048, 0.0049. Two evaluation indexes (R2 and RMSE Error Value) indicated a better result for n value obtained by Ganguillet-Kutter formula. The flow inside the drainage pipes is a turbulent and spatially variable which is affected by the small flows entering the pipe through holes.  This flow pattern, while disrupting the uniform distribution of the transverse velocity of the flow, caused flow inhibition and increased Manning's roughness coefficient in the first 30 cm due to the flow rate and low flow speed compared to the second 30 cm. The negligible difference between "n" Manning’s with "n" Ganguillete-Kutter’s is not important and applying 0.011 for Manning coefficient in smooth pipe and 0.009 for corrugating pipe with envelop is satisfactory.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Experimental Study of roughness coefficient in smooth and corrugated drainage pipes with envelop and non-envelope

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Introduction

The roughness coefficient is effective parameter in the drainage pipes that constant coefficients, under full flow conditions an error in calculating could result. Therefore, knowing the from of experimental roughness coefficients are usually is needed different conditions type of pipes and under half depth or lower flows. The roughness coefficient can be determined from the Darcy-Weissbach and Manning formula. The roughness coefficient of two types of smooth and corrugated pipes using the physical model in three states: mineral envelop, artificial (plastic mesh) produced domestically, and non-envelop according to U.S.B.R. has been studied in a sandy soil. The objective of this research is to determined roughness coefficient from Manning, Ganguillet-Cutter and combination Reynolds&Darcy-Weissbach formulas in drainage pipes.

Materials and Methods

The required soil was a combination of sandy and clay soil. In this research, an experimental box model was used. The roughness coefficient was determined by independent tests in the two smooth pipe with a diameter of 63 and corrugated with a diameter 56mm. The first set was for pipes with envelop of mineral, second test included synthetic materials and third test pipes without envelop. For mineral envelop is used d60 of Particle Size Distribution curve according to U.S.B.R standard. For artificial materials, plastic with 2mm mesh was used based on the criterion of . pipe of drainage length was 100cm, which installed with a slope of 2%. The discharge of drain pipe was measured in different time steps. To compare the results, were used factors R2 and RMSE.

Results and Discussion

With roughness coefficient of the pipe increases, to reduce the flow velocity and discharge rate in the pipe. The smooth or corrugated of pipe and the hydraulic conditions inside the pipe with the greatest effect have on the roughness coefficient. Value of 'n' Manning’s in the first 30cm of the smooth pipe with artificial, mineral envelop and non-envelop was 0.0111, 0.0113, 0.0112, and for the corrugated pipe obtained 0.0090, 0.0091, 0.0094. The same changes at the first of 30cm from the Ganguillet-Cutter relationship and the Reynolds-Darcy-Weissbach relationship were also established. So that 'n' Ganguillet-Cutter’s was obtained for the smooth pipe in synthetic envelop, mineral and non-envelop, 0.0048 and for the corrugated pipe 0.0042, 0.0042 and 0.0043, respectively. The roughness coefficient, from the Reynolds-Darcy Weissbach combination formula in the smooth pipe with synthetic envelop, mineral and non-envelop was calculated 0.0050, 0.0050, 0.0049 and for the corrugated pipe 0.0048, 0.0048, 0.0049. The resulting roughness coefficient values for the second 30 cm of the pipe have the same conditions as the first 30cm of the pipe. In total, the average 'n' Manning’s for the first and second 30cm of the smooth pipe with synthetic envelop, mineral, and non-envelop was 0.0106, 0.0111, 0.011 and for the corrugated pipe 0.0088, 0.009, 0.0091. Also, the average 'n' Manning’s from the Ganguillet-Cutter relationship for both lengths of smooth pipe with artificial envelop, mineral, non-envelop is 0.0048, 0.0048, 0.0048 and for corrugated pipe 0.0041, 0.0042, 0.0042 obtained. The average 'n' Manning’s from the combined Reynolds-Darcy-Weissbach relationship for the length of first and second of the smooth pipe with artificial envelop, mineral, non-envelop 0.005, 0.005, 0.0049 and for the corrugated one 0.0048, 0.0048, 0.0049 was obtained. The lack of clear difference in the roughness difference between two smooth and corrugated pipes can be seen in the small diameter of the pipes, low roughness, the short height of the waves in the corrugated pipe, the close distance of the waves to each other, and the shape of the corrugated pipe waves. The Manning theory stated that the flow rate is inversely proportional to the roughness coefficients. From the experiments, it shows smoother surface is having higher roughness coefficient and higher retarding effect on the water flow, lower flow rate is produced. Results showed, R2 and RMSE of the Ganguillet-Cutter than Manning in the smoot pipe are 0.80-0.97 and 0.006-0.007, and corrugated pipe 0.82-0.96 and 0.005 respectively. Also, this factors of the combinate Reynolds&Darcy-Weissbach in the smoot pipe 0.08-0.84 and 0.006-0.007 and corrugated pipe 0.03-0.90 and 0.004 - 0.005 respectively. This study showed in addition to Manning formula providing a roughness coefficient way of estimating, Ganguillet-Cutter can be the accuracy and efficiency of the prediction of the roughness coefficient. Now, corrugated plastic pipe in envelope is first choices. It is much more complicated for corrugated drains. The performance comparison of each of the envelops regarding the roughness value showed that both envelops have an acceptable hydraulic performance.

References

AbdelDaiem, S., Hoevenaars, J., Mollinga, P., Scheumann, W., Slootweg, R., and Van Steenbergen, F. (2005). Agriculture drainage towards an integrated approach, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage System. 19 (2): 71-87.
Abdullah, J.؛ Mohd Arif Zainol, M.R.R.؛ Riahi, A.؛ Zakaria, N.A.؛ Yusof, M.F.؛ Shaharuddin, S.؛ Alias, M.N.؛ Mohd Kasim, M.Z.؛ Abdul Aziz, M.S.؛ Mohamed Noor, N.؛ Hafiz Zawawi, M. and Ikhsan, J. (2023). Investigating the Relationship between the Manning Coefficients (n) of a Perforated Subsurface Stormwater Drainage Pipe and the Hydraulic Parameters. Sustainability. 15 (6929): 1-14.
Broughton, S., Makhlouf, M.A. and Metzger, J. (1990). Features of large diameter corrugated polyethylene pipes manufactured at Aga, Egypt. Proceedings of Symposium on Land Drainage for Salinity Control in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions. 3: 142-1551. Cairo, Egypt.
Clemmens, A. J., Eisenhauer, D. E., and Maheshwari, B. L. (2001). Infiltration and roughness equations for surface irrigation: How Form Influences Estimation. ASAE Meeting Paper. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Ebrahimian, H., liaghat, A., Parsinejad, M., Akram M. (2010). Investigation of approach flow around drain pipe with rice husk envelope (case study: Ran-Behshahr project). Iranian Water Research Journal. 4 (1): 25-34. (In Persian).
FAO, (2005). Materials for subsurface land drainage systems, FAO Irrigationand Drainage Paper 60. Rome.
Ganguillet, E. and Kutter, W.R., (1869). An investigation to establish a new general formula for uniform flow of water in canals and river.
Gupta, S.K. (2019). Drainage Engineering: Principles and Practices, Sientific publishers. P.p: 363.
Guzmán, K., La Motta, E.J., McCorquodale, J.A., Roiss, S. and Ermogenous, M. (2007). Effect of Biofilm Formation on Roughness Coefficient and Solids Deposition in Small-Diameter PVC Sewer Pipes. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 133 (4): Pp 364-371.
Hassanoghli, Alireza and Pedram. Shohre. (2013). Assessment of Clogging Potential of Three Different Synthetic Drainage Envelopes in Application of Saline Water and Soil by Permeability Test. Journal of Water and Soil. 26 (6): 1395-1409. (In Persian).
Hinds, J. (1926). Side channel Spillway. Trans ASCE, 89: 881-927.
Hosainzadeh, M., Navvabian, M. and Pirmoradian, N. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Organic and Mineral Development of Drainage Pipes, In Circumstances Similar to Those of Paddy Fields. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 46 (3): 499-508. (In Persian).
International Plumbing Code (IPC), (2021). Fifth Version, 15 Chapter (Chapter 7: Sanitary Drainage). 1304 Pp.
Irwin, R.W., and Motycka, J., (1979). Friction factors for corrugated plastic drainage tube, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. division, ASCE, 105 (1): 29-36.
Jafari Talukolaee, M., Shahnazari, A., and Ziatabar-Ahmadi, M.Kh. (2013). An investigation of the effect of two drainage envelope types on subsurface drainage flow rates in paddy fields of Mazandaran province. Journal Water Soil. 27 (1): 123-130. (In Persian).
Karimi, B. (2016). Simulation of hydraulic performance in synthetic envelope pp450 and mineral envelope using Permeameter in laboratory condition. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation. 23 (1): 247-260. (In Persian).
Kouchakzadeh, S. Akram, M. and Bagheri, F. 2006. Hydraulic performance of corrugated pipes based on their hydraulic performance. Journal of Agriculture Engineering Research, 7 (27): 1-18. (In Persian).
Kouchakzadeh, S. and Bagheri, F. 2003. Determination of roughness coefficient for corrugated drainage pipes based on real flow conditions. Journal of Agriculture Sciense. (University of Tehran). 34 (3): 681-692. (In Persian).
Maddahzadeh, S. M. A., Esmaili, K. and Ghahraman, B. (2017). Evaluation of Water Table Fluctuations and Drainage Discharge of Bi-Level Drainage System in a Layered Soil. JWSS - Journal of Water and Soil Science (Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources). 21 (1): 69-81. (In Persian).
Malaekeh. P. (2017). Polyethylene pipes with corrugated walls. Iran Polymer Technology, Research and Development. 2 (2): 77-86. (In Persian).
Management and Planning Organization. (2015). Guideline of design and implementation of drainage in asphalt pavement. no. 366. Pp. 107. (In Persian).
Mangin, S. F. (2010). Development of an equation independent of Manning’s coefficient n for depth prediction in partially-filled circular culverts. Younstown State University. Master of Science in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Program. 159 Pp.
Mehdinejadiani, B., Kashkuli, H.A. and Naseri, A.A. (2008). Evaluation of Synthetic Envelope for Subsurface Drains and Its Comparison with Granular Envelope Under Laboratory Conditions. Iranian Journal of Soil Research (IJSR). 22 (1): 113-125. (In Persian).
Noshadi, M., Jamaldini, M. and Sepaskhah, A. (2015). Investigating the Performance of Gravel and Synthetic Envelopes in Subsurface Drainage. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 19 (71): 151-162. (In Persian).
Nozari, H , Pour Sadri, A. and Zali, A. (2017). Experimental study of drainage pipes openings arrangement effect on drainage water salt load. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 27 (3): 187-198. (In Persian).
Pazira, E., Liaghat, A..M., Darbandi, S., Liaghat, Z., Akram, M. and Azari, A. (2009) Material for subsurface land drainage systems. Publishers: Iranian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage. Pp, 340 (In Persian).
Rezaei Rad, H., Ebrahimian, H., Liaghat, A., Khalaji., F. and Shabani, M. (2021). Effect of inflow rate and initial soil moisture on Manning roughness coefficient in advance and storage phases in furrow irrigation. Journal of Water and Irrigation Management. 11 (2): 159-172. (In Persian).
Ritzema, H.P. (1994). Drainage principles and application International Institute for land reclamation and improvement. Pub. No.16.
Subramanya, K. (1986). Flow in open channel, first revised edition, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Tullis, B.P., Barfuss, S.L and Christensen, R.T. (2006). Changes in hydraulic roughness coefficients for circumferentially strained M294 pipe. Transportation Research Record. 1976 (1): 149–154.
Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision. (2013). Criteria for Design and Commonly use Drawings of Subsurface Drainage Structures. No. 576. Pp. 30. (In Persian).
Yang, H.Y., Wu, J., Guo, C., Li, H. and, Wu, Z. (2023). Effects of geotextile envelope and perforations on the performance of corrugated drain pipes. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 16 (1): 36-44.
Youri, M.R., Sharifan, H., and Hezarjaribi, A. (2017). Extrimenal Assessment of Three Types of Envelopes Used in Subsurface Drainages. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. 11 (1): 58-68. (In Persian).
Zaghloul, N.A. (1998). Flow simulation in circular pipes with variable roughness using SWMM-EXTRAN model. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 124 (1): 73-76.
Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research
Volume 54, Issue 9
December 2023
Pages 1381-1396

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics