TECHNICAL NOTE: FORMULAS FOR COMPUTING GEOMETRY AND CRITICAL DEPTH OF GENERAL HORSESHOE TUNNELS

J. L. Liu, Z. Z. Wang, X. Fang

ABSTRACT. This technical note presents general equations for the geometric elements of all types of horseshoe crosssections used in water conveyance systems such as for irrigation, drainage, and water supply projects. We derived iterative formulas for calculating critical depth of general horseshoe crosssections, and these formulas can be used for computer program development to find accurate solutions of critical depth. Based on the principle of gradual optimization fitting, general estimation formulas were also developed for direct computation of critical depth for all types of standard horseshoe crosssections. The estimation formulas have high accuracy for hydraulic designers to use in comparison to accurate critical depth determined from the iterative formulas, and the maximum relative error is less than 1%. Keywords. Channel geometry, Critical depth, Drainage channels, Estimation formulas, Horseshoe crosssections, Hydraulic design, Hydraulics, Iterative formulas.

ritical depth calculation is an important task for agricultural and hydraulic engineers in the design of conveyance channels for irrigation and drainage projects. The flow depth corresponding to the minimum specific energy for a given discharge in an open channel is known as the critical depth. In the design of non pressurized water conveyance tunnels, e.g., for irrigation and water supply systems, it is necessary to avoid the alternating phenomenon between partially full freesurface flow and fullpipe (pressurized) flow (Tsinghua University, 1980; Fan et al., 2006). Therefore, it is very important to calculate criti cal depth with high accuracy. The governing equation for critical depth computation (Chow, 1959) is:
3 mQ 2 A c = g Bc

(1)

where m is the kinetic energy correction coefficient and can normally be taken as 1.0 for manmade channels with regular geometric shapes (Chow, 1959), Q is the discharge (m3 s1) given to compute the corresponding critical depth, g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m s2), Ac is the flow cross sectional area (m2) corresponding to the critical depth, and Bc is the top width (m) at the water surface corresponding to the critical depth. Up to now, analytical equations have only been available for direct calculation of critical depth in rectangular (Chow, 1959) and triangular (Wong and Zhou, 2004) crosssection

Submitted for review in September 2009 as manuscript number SW 8187; approved for publication as a Technical Note by the Soil & Water Division of ASABE in June 2010. The authors are Jiliang Liu, Graduate Research Assistant, and Zhengzhong Wang, Professor and Director, Research Center of Water Engineering Safety and Disaster Prevention, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China; and Xing Fang, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Corresponding author: Xing Fang, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 368495337; phone: 3348448778; fax: 3348446290; email: [email protected].

channels. Swamee (1993) developed critical depth equations for irrigation canals of trapezoidal, roundedbottom, and roundedcorner trapezoidal crosssections with a maximum error less than 2%. More accurate formulas for calculating critical depth of trapezoidal openchannel sections were de veloped by Wang (1998) and Swamee and Rathie (2005). De signers and engineers can use either the charts (Chow, 1959) or manual trialanderror procedures, estimation formulas, or computer software to calculate critical depths for trapezoidal and circular channels to any desired degree of accuracy. For channels with more complex geometric shapes, engineers can use either an estimation equation (if available) or manual trialanderror procedures for critical depth computation with various degrees of error when computer software is not available. Horseshoe crosssection is one of the frequently used crosssections for freesurface water conveyance tunnels be cause of its superior hydraulic and structural characteristics (Jiang, 1977; Chengdu University of Science and Technolo gy, 1979). A horseshoe crosssection also facilitates move ment of construction and maintenance equipment inside the tunnel because the tunnel has a flatter floor upon which equipment can travel more easily. Horseshoe crosssections were used in Turkey during the last 4000 years (Ozis, 1996), have been designed and built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclama tion (Hu, 1973), and have been used for many hydraulic pro jects in China (Wang et al., 2005) and several other countries (Merkley, 2005). Because the geometry is complex, it is im possible to obtain an analytical solution of critical depth for a horseshoe crosssection using equation 1. Researchers have attempted to develop calculation formulas of critical depth for horseshoe crosssections (Lv, 2002; Wang et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2009). However, these formulas are not general for all types of horseshoe crosssections and have low accura cy. Critical depths for common channel sections can be rou tinely calculated with the aid of computer software, but there is as yet no computer software to aid in the hydraulic design of horseshoe channel sections. The storm water manage-

Transactions of the ASABE Vol. 53(4): 1159-1164 E 2010 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 2151-0032 1159

Figure 1. Horseshoe crosssections showing geometric elements and angles at three depths: (1) 0 < h < e; (2) e < h < r, and (3) r < h < 2r.

ment model (SWMM) is only the computer program that al lows a user to select horseshoe as special closed conduit (Ros sman, 2004) for a complex storm management modeling study (not a design tool) with one input parameter: conduit height. The user has no information on whether it is a stan dard Itype or IItype horseshoe section, and the geometric and hydraulic properties of the horseshoe section are hard wired into the SWMM computing engine. This technical note presents general equations for the geo metric elements of all types of horseshoe crosssections. We derived iterative formulas for calculating critical depth of horseshoe sections, and these formulas can be used for com puter program development to find accurate solutions of crit ical depth. Based on the principle of gradual optimization fitting (Zheng and Liu, 2001), general estimation formulas giving the direct solution of critical depth of standard horse shoe crosssections were developed for engineers and design ers to use without developing or using a computer program. In order to verify the accuracy of the formulas, relative errors of computed critical depths of standard Itype and IItype horseshoe crosssections were analyzed. This study not only provides useful equations for designers but also reveals that it is possible to develop general equations to quantify the geo metric parameters of all types of horseshoe crosssections, so that engineers can use them to compute basic design parame ters, e.g., critical and normal depths. This study leads us to develop general geometric equations suitable for all eight types of openchannel crosssections: circular, rectangular, trapezoidal, triangular, roundedcorner rectangular, rounded corner trapezoidal, roundedbottom triangular, and U shaped. These general equations have been used to develop a design tool for accurately computing critical and normal depths (KC et al., 2010).

is called as standard Itype horseshoe crosssection, and when t = 2 or R = 2r, it is called as standard IItype horseshoe cross section (Wang et al., 2005). At least 100 hydraulic projects in China have used standard horseshoe tunnels, and standard Itype horseshoe crosssections were used in about 40% of these projects. A few projects have nonstandard horseshoe crosssections (t = 2.5, 2.8, or other values instead of 2 or 3) in order to accommodate to local geological conditions. Hu (1973, 1980) and Merkley (2005) presented equations for de signers to compute the geometric and hydraulic elements of standard horseshoe tunnels, but all equations were developed specifically for the standard IItype horseshoe crosssections and are not fully suitable for the standard Itype and other variations of horseshoe crosssections. Figure 1 shows a general horseshoe crosssection and cor responding geometric elements and angles at three different water depths (h). For the bottom arc, its height e (fig. 1) can be computed as:

e = R R cos = r R sin

(3)

From equation 3 we can obtain the relationship between the ratio t and the angle q as follows:
2 t 1 sin = 4 2 t 2 t 1 arcsin 2 t 4

(4)

Therefore, the angle q can be computed as function of t:

=

(5)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A horseshoe crosssection tunnel consists of four arc seg ments: a top semicircular arc with a radius r (m), two lateral or side arcs, and a bottom arc with the same radius R (m) but different circular centers (fig. 1). For a general horseshoe crosssection, a characteristic parameter t is defined as:
t= R r

(2)

When t = 1 or R = r, the horseshoe crosssection is exactly the same as a circular crosssection. When t = 3 or R = 3r, it

0.12917r (eq. 3) for the Itype and = / 4 arcsin ( 2 / 4 ) = 0.424031 or e = 0.17712r for the IItype horseshoe cross section. Using figure 1 and the above equations, we derived general formulas (table 1) computing geometric elements (top width B, wetted perimeter P, and flow area A) at three ranges of water depth (h) (0 < h < e, e < h < r, and r < h < 2r) for a general horseshoe crosssection as functions of angles a, b, and f that can be computed from given depth h (table 1). Figure 2 shows dimensionless top width B = B/(2r) and di mensionless area A = A/(p r2) as functions of dimensionless depth (h/r) for circular, standard Itype, and standard IItype

When t = 1 (circular crosssection), we have q = p/4 and the centers for the four arcs are at the same location. When t = 3 and 2 for the standard Itype and IItype horseshoe cross sections, we have = / 4 arcsin ( 2 / 3) = 0.294515 or e =

1160

TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

0 < h < e or 0 < < A = t r [b 0.5 sin( 2b)] B = 2tr sin b P = 2trb h = tr (1 cos b) b = arccos
[a ] 2 2

Table 1. Formulas computing geometric elements of a horseshoe crosssection.[a] e < h < r or 0 < < r < h < 2r or 0 < < A = t r [C a 0.5 sin( 2a ) + B = 2 r (t cos a t + 1) P = 2tr (2 q a ) h = r (1 t sin a ) a = arcsin
2 2

2(t 1) t

sin a ]

A = r [t C + 0.5(p + sin )] B = 2 r sin( / 2) P = r (4tq + p ) h = r[1 + cos( / 2)] = 2 arccos

tr h tr

rh tr

hr r

C = 2 q + 1 sin( 2q) cos(2 q) and angles a , b, and are defined in figure 1.

Figure 2. Dimensionless topwidth B4 = B/(2r) and dimensionless area A4 = A/(p r2) as function of dimensionless depth (h/r) for circular, standard Itype and IItype horseshoe crosssections.

horseshoe crosssections. Figure 2 clearly shows that the horseshoe crosssections have larger flow areas than a circu lar crosssection has at any water depth. Formulas for wetted perimeter can be used to determine normal depth in a general horseshoe crosssection and estimate construction cost to line the tunnel. Because the geometry of a horseshoe crosssection is com plex, as shown in figure 1, and given as three sets of complex formulas (transcendental equations) in table 1, there is no di rect analytical solution of critical depth for general horseshoe crosssection using equation 1. One may use a trialanderror procedure to estimate the critical depth using equation 1 and the formulas in table 1, but that process is troublesome and timeconsuming with low accuracy. Substituting the formu las for top width and area in table 1 into equation 1, we devel oped iterative formulas for computing angles corresponding to the critical depth at three different depth ranges, and they are listed in table 2. After characteristic angles b or a or are determined using the iterative formulas, one can use the for mulas in table 1 to compute the critical depth hc . Initial values of angles b i and ai should be set as the angle q (eq. 5), and the initial value of i should be set as p for starting the itera tion process. Typically, when we need to determine the criti cal depth for a given discharge, we do not know which case applies, of the three cases in figure 1. Therefore, we introduced Qe as critical flow rate (discharge) when hc = e,

and Qr as critical flow rate when hc = r. The values of Qe and Qr can be computed using the following formulas (Wang et al., 2005) given as equations 6 and 7: For standard Itype horseshoe crosssections (t = 3):
Qe = 0.044 g 1 / 2 r 5 / 2 , Qr = 1.733 g 1 / 2 r 5 / 2

(6)

For standard IItype horseshoe crosssections (t = 2):

Qe = 0.067 g 1 / 2 r 5 / 2 , Qr = 1.632 g 1 / 2 r 5 / 2

(7)

After one computes Qe and Qr, one can select the appropri ate formula in table 2 to start the iterative computation for de termining critical depth of a standard horseshoe cross section. These iterative formulas for calculating critical depth are still complex, and suitable for computer program ming but not suitable for manual hydraulic computation. Fig ure 3 shows the dimensionless critical depth y, defined in equation 8 and determined using the iterative formulas in table 2 and the MATLAB program (MathWorks, 2004), ver sus a dimensionless parameter x, defined in equation 8 as a function of given discharge Q and radius r: 2Q 2 x= 5 gr
1/ 3

Z = 4 2.5 do

2/3

y=

hc r

(8)

Vol. 53(4): 1159-1164

1161

Table 2. Iterative formulas computing angles corresponding to critical depth hc . Depth 0 < hc < e Discharge Q < Qe b i + 1 = 0.5 sin(2bi ) + t
5 / 3

Iterative formula

2Q 2 gr 5
2(t 1) t

1/ 3

(sin b i )

1/ 3

e < hc < r

Qe < Q < Qr

a i +1 = C 0.5 sin( 2a i ) +

sin a i t

2Q 2 gr 5

1/ 3

(t cos a i t + 1)

1/ 3

r < hc < 2r

Q > Qr

i +1 = 2t C + p + sin i 2
2

2Q 2 gr 5

1/ 3

[sin(i / 2)]

1/ 3

For Qe < Q < Qr : y = (0.0098 t 0.0455) x 2 + (0.6431 0.0291t ) x + (0.0858 0.0145 t ) For Q > Qe : y = (0.0024 t + 0.0652) x 2 + (0.0216 t + 0.7468) x (0.0708 t + 0.0344) (9c) (9b)

Figure 3. Dimensionless critical depth y = hc /r versus dimensionless for standard Itype and IItype horseshoe parameter x = 2Q 2 / gr 5 crosssections. Critical depth hc was computed using geometric formulas in table 1 and iterative formulas given in table 2 using a MATLAB program.

1/ 3

where do = 2r is the diameter of the top arc, Z = Q / g = A3 / B is the shape or sectional factor of the channel (Chow, 2 1959), and Z / d o .5 is the dimensionless parameter used for the chart method to determine critical depth in a circular channel (Chow, 1959). One can use figure 3 to estimate the critical depth of standard Itype and IItype horseshoe cross sections if high accuracy is not wanted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

We developed 2000 data points of x and y generated from a MATLAB program that implemented the iterative formu las. Based on the principle of gradual optimization fitting (Zheng and Liu, 2001) on the data points, we developed es timation formulas for dimensionless critical depth y of stan dard horseshoe crosssection as follows: For Q < Qe :
y = (0.0372 t 0.2441 t
2

Using equations 6, 7, and 8, we determined the limits of dimensionless parameter x (table 3) for applications of the above estimation formulas for computing critical depth of standard horseshoe crosssections. The estimation formulas use dimensionless parameters t and x that connect to two ba sic geometric parameters and one flow controlling parameter (R, r, and Q) for critical depth determination of horseshoe crosssections; therefore, they are universal and general for all types of standard horseshoe crosssections. In order to avoid the alternating phenomenon between nonpressurized freesurface and fullpipe pressurized flow, for normal hy draulic designs of water conveyance tunnels, the open area above the free water surface is suggested to be not less than 15% of the total crosssectional area or the height of the open area not less than 0.4 m or 15% of the tunnel height (Tsinghua University, 1980). Therefore, the maximum values of dimen sionless parameter x in table 3 were determined based on the above principles for hydraulic designers. In hydraulic design, it is not meaningful or necessary to compute critical depth for very small water depth or discharge, for example, empirical or estimation equations for computing critical depth in a cir cular channel were developed for 0.1 < h/r < 1.7 (Wang et al., 2004). Therefore, the minimum values of dimensionless pa rameter x in table 3 were suggested and determined at h/r = 0.1. The accuracy of the estimation formulas was evaluated and is shown in figure 4. The relative error is defined as: error = ( y y*) / y * 100% (10)

+ 0.9134) x 0.0064 t

0.0338 t + 0.7939b

(9a)

where y was calculated using the estimation formulas, and y* was calculated using the iterative formulas in table 2 and a MATLAB program. The value of y* was computed with high accuracy and treated as an accurate value of critical depth. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the relative error for critical

1162

TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

Table 3. Limits of dimensionless parameter x for application of estimation formulas (eq. 10). Horseshoe CrossSection Q < Qe Qe < Q < Qr Itype IItype
[a]

Q > Qr

0.112 < x < 0.158 0.098 < x < 0.209

0.158 < x < 1.818 0.209 < x < 1.746

1.818 < x < 3.069 (or 3.4607)[a] 1.746 < x < 3.010 (or 3.3807)[a]

Maximum limits outside and inside parentheses were determined based on the open area above the free water surface at 15% of the total crosssection area or the height of the open area at 15% of the tunnel height (Tsinghua University, 1980), respectively.

crosssectional flow area A is 9.82 m2 (105.69 ft2) using the equations in table 1.

CONCLUSIONS
This technical note presents general equations for the geometric elements of all types of horseshoe crosssections that can be used for hydraulic design and estimation of construction costs of the tunnel. We derived iterative formulas for calculating critical depth of general horseshoe sections, and these formulas can be used for computer program development to find accurate solutions of critical depths. Based on the principle of gradual optimization fitting, general estimation formulas were also developed for direct computation of critical depth for all types of standard horseshoe crosssections. The formulas have high accuracy with relative error less than 1%. They are useful for designers and engineers to appropriately design horseshoe cross sections of water conveyance tunnels. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by a State 863 Project of China (No. 2002AA62Z3191). We would like to thank Mr. Zhao Yanfeng for his suggestions on this study. We are also grateful to Mr. Lv Hongxing for his previous work on critical depth calculation of horseshoe crosssections. Thanks for comments and suggestions from reviewers and the associate editor.

Figure 4. Relative errors (%) of estimation formulas computing critical depth for standard Itype and IItype horseshoe crosssections.

depth computed using the estimation formulas for standard Itype and IItype horseshoe crosssections over a wide range of hc values; the error is less than 1% from the accurate criti cal depth. Therefore, the estimation formulas are accurate enough and suitable for manual computation of the hydraulic design of standard horseshoe crosssections of open chan nels. One sample of application of equation 9 is given below. Given a IItype standard horseshoe tunnel (t = 2 = R/r) with R = 6.1 m (20 ft) (Hu, 1980), and one wants to determine the critical depth at a discharge of 39.6 m3 s1 (1400 cfs). From equation 7 we have: Qe = 0.067g1/2 r5/2 = 3.4 m3 s1 (120.2 ft3 s1) Qr = 1.632g1/2 r5/2 = 82.9 m3 s1 (2927.8 ft3 s1) We can use equations 8 and 9 (the second equation for Qe < Q < Qr ) to compute the critical depth as:
2Q 2 x= gr 5
1/ 3

REFERENCES
Chengdu University of Science and Technology. 1979. Hydraulics, vol. 2. Hydraulic Research Division, ed. Beijing, China: People's Education Publishing. Chow, V. T. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill. Fan, H. H., N. X. Chen, L. Yang, and J. B. Huang. 2006. Numerical simulation and experimental verification of transient mixed freesurfacepressure flow. Engineering Mechanics 23(6): 1620 (in Chinese). Hu, W. W. 1973. Hydraulic elements for USBR standard horseshoe tunnel. Transport. Eng. J. ASCE 99(4): 973980. Hu, W. W. 1980. Water surface profile for horseshoe tunnel. Transport. Eng. J. ASCE 106(2): 133139. Jiang, H. Z. 1977. Design Theory and Computation of Tunnels for Hydraulic Engineering Projects. Beijing, China: Hydraulic and Electric Power Publisher. KC, M., Devkota, J., and Fang, X. 2010. Comprehensive evaluation and new development of determination of critical and normal depths for different types of openchannel crosssections. In Proc. World Environ. and Water Resources Congress 2010: Challenges of Change. R. N. Palmer, ed. Reston, Va.: ASCE/ EWRI. Lv, H. X. 2002. Calculation of critical depth of horseshoe cross section by iterative method. J. Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute 19(3): 1012 (in Chinese).

= 1.0679

y = (0.0098 t 0.0455) x 2 + (0.6431 0.0291t ) x + (0.0858 0.0145 t ) = 0.6519 yc = y r = 1.987 m = 6.519 ft The accurate solution from the iterative formula is 1.986 m, with a relative error of 0.03% from the estimation equation. At the same time, we determine angle a to be 0.175 radians at this discharge, top width B is 5.91 m (19.39 ft), wetted perimeter P is 8.21 m (26.92 ft), and the

Vol. 53(4): 1159-1164

1163

MathWorks. 2004. Genetic algorithm and direct search toolbox user's guide. Natick, Mass.: The MathWorks, Inc. Merkley, G. P. 2005. Standard horseshoe crosssection geometry. Agric. Water Mgmt. 71(1): 6170. Ozis, U. 1996. Historical water schemes in Turkey. Intl. J. Water Resources Development 12(3): 347384. Rossman, L. A. 2004. Storm Water Management Model: User's Manual (Version 5.0). Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Swamee, P. K. 1993. Critical depth equations for irrigation canals. J. Irrig. and Drainage Eng. 119(2): 400409. Swamee, P. K., and P. N. Rathie. 2005. Exact equations for critical depth in a trapezoidal canal. J. Irrig. and Drainage Eng 131(5): 474476. Tsinghua University. 1980. Hydraulics, vol. 2. Hydraulic Research Division, ed. Beijing, China: Higher Education Publishing. Wang, Z. Z. 1998. Formula for calculating critical depth of trapezoidal open channel. J. Hydraulic Eng. 124(1): 9091. Wang, Z. Z., T. Chen, B. Wan, and X. M. Zhang. 2004. A new approximate formula to critical depth of round section canal. J. Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute 21(2): 810 (in Chinese). Wang, Z. Z., T. Chen, Q. Lu, and X. D. Zhang. 2005. The direct solution on critical depth of horseshoe section tunnel. J. Hydroelectric Eng. 24(5): 9598 (in Chinese). Wong, T. S. W., and M. C. Zhou. 2004. Determination of critical and normal depths using Excel. In Proc. 2004 World Water and Environ. Resources Congress 2004. G. Sehlke and D. F. Hayes, eds. Reston, Va.: ASCE. Zhang, K. D., H. X. Lv, and J. Y. Chen. 2009. Direct calculation of critical depth of horseshoe section tunnel. Trans. Chinese Soc. Agric. Eng. 25(4): 1518 (in Chinese). Zheng, J. Z., and Z. H. Liu. 2001. Numerical Method. 2nd ed. Xian, China: Publishing House of Xian Communication University.

NOMENCLATURE
A A B B c do e g h m P Q Qe Qr R r t = flow crosssectional area (m2) = relative flow area, A = A/(p r2) = top width at the water surface (m) = relative top width, B = B/(2r) = subscript standing for critical depth = diameter of the top arc, do = 2r = height of the bottom arc (m) = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m s2) = water (flow) depth (m) = kinetic energy correction coefficient (taken as 1.0) = wetted perimeter = discharge or volumetric flow rate (m3 s1) = critical flow when hk = e = critical flow when hk = r = radius of bottom arch and lateral arch = radius of top arch = ratio of R and r
1/ 3

2Q 2 x = dimensionless independent variable, x = 5 gr y = relative critical depth, y = hc/r Z = shape or sectional factor of a channel, Z = Q / g =

a b q

A3 / B = half of the central angle of the lateral arc as water depth e < h < r = half of the central angle of the bottom arc as water depth h < e = half of the central angle of the bottom or lateral arc at water depth h = e = central angle of the top arc as water depth r < h < 2r.

1164

TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE