Inlet and Outlet Manifolds and

Plant Hydraulics
In which Kinetic Energy BECOMES
SIGNIFICANT
(Thanks to A.A. Milne)

Monroe L. Weber-Shirk

School of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Nomenclature: a start
Symbol

Description

Sub

Flow

Port

Area

Manifold

Piezometric head

hL

Total Head Loss

HGL

Hydraulic Grade Line

EGL

Energy Grade Line

Cp

Pressure Coefficient (includes shear and expansion

effects)

vc

Area of the vena contracta divided by the orifice area =

0.62

Diameter
Dimensionless ratio
Number of ports

The Problem
How can we deliver water uniformly into the bottom of the
sedimentation tank and
Extract clean water uniformly from above the plate settlers
and
Extract sludge uniformly from the bottom of the tank?
How can we make it so that the water doesnt all take the
easy, short path?

n-1

How can we make water choose

equally between several paths?
Draw a manifold with ports that you think
would give unequal flow
Draw a manifold with ports that you think
would give equal flow
What do you think is important?
1

n-1

Will the flow be the same?

NO!

An example to illustrate the concepts

Long

1
=
K

K=
1

K=1

p1
V12
p2
V22
z1

z2
hL
g
2g g
2g
K=0.5

K=0.2

Short

K=1

Head loss for long route = head loss for short route if KE is ignored

Q for long route< Q for short route

Flow Division Analysis

V2
hl C p
2g
hl C p

C pShort Q

L V2
hf f
D 2g

L
Cp K f
D

8Q
g 2 D 4

hl C p Q
2
Short

V2
he K
2g

Short path
2
hl C pShort QShort

C pLong Q

2
Long

Long path
2
hl C pLong QLong

QLong
QShort

C pShort
C pLong

How did the flow divide?

Long

1
=
K

K=1

Improve this?

K=
1

Short

K=0.2

QLong
QShort

C pShort
C pLong

0.2
0.26
3

K Control

C pShort K Control
C pLong K Control

2
Q
C pLong C pShort

Set Q to 0.95

2
1 Q

K.Control

.Q C.PLong C.PShort
2

1 .Q

25.718

Plant Flow Distribution

Equal flow between sed tank bays?
Equal flow between plate settlers?
Equal flow through
ports into sed
tank?
Equal flow
through ports into
sludge drain
Where can we use flow restrictions? ___________________
After flocs are removed

Terminology
Flow into tank (out of manifold) Inlet
Manifold
Flow out of tank (into manifold) Outlet
launder
Overflow Weir
Submerged pipe with orifices
How do we choose which system
to use?
Ease of construction, avoid floating flocs

Manifold: Flow Calculations

p
z
g

We will derive equations in terms of Hydraulic

Grade Line (HGL) because piezometric head
controls the port flow
a p g 2 V
Port flow
based on _______
orifice equation
Piezometric head change (H) across port
flow expansion

Piezometric head change (H) between ports

Darcy-Weisbach and Swamee-Jain

In manifold

Head Loss due to

Sudden Expansion
Ain
Vout
Mass A V
out
in

2
pin pout Vin2 Vout

Energy hex
g
2g
2
2 Ain
Vout Vin
Aout
Momentum pin pout
g
g

hex

2
2 Vout
V

V
2 out 2 in
2
Vin
Vin2 Vout

2g
2g

Ain
Vin Vout

hex
1

hex
A
out

2g
Kex=1
Discharge into a reservoir?_________
2

2
in

2g

hex

2
Vout
2VinVout Vin2

2g

K ex

Ain
1

A
out

Inlet Manifold
Vin Vout Vout

pout pin

g
g

pin pout

g
H expansion

2
out

2
in

Ain
Aout

Vin Vout Vout

EGL
HGL

1
Major head loss

n-1

What is total Hexpansion as a

function of n?
H expansion
n 1

H
i 1

Vin Vout Vout

QM n i QM 1

nAM
g
i 1 nAM
n 1

expansion

n 1

2 n 1
M

n i

H expansion

n 1

VM2 n 1

g 2n

i 1

H
i 1

expansion

i 1

n2

Vin Vout

QP

AM

QM
QP
n
Vouti

n i QM
nAM

VM2
Approaches
for large n
2g

_______________
All
kinetic energy is recovered for very gradual expansion.

Outlet Manifold (Launder)

Flow contractions, thus no significant minor loss!
EGL
HGL

VM2
All of the changes at the ports sum to
2g

n-1

Head Loss in a Manifold (same for inlet

or outlet) between first and last ports
L V2
hf f
D 2g
2
LP VM i
hfi f i
DM 2 g

VM i

LM 1 QM
h

fi
i

DM 2 g AM
i 1
n 1

n 1

n i
i 1

n 1

hfi fi
i 1

LM LP n 1

Define manifold length as

QM
nAM

1
n 1 n 2

LM 1 QM

DM 2 g AM

EGL
HGL

n n 1 2n 1
2

n i

2n 1

n 1

n i

n-1

i 1

n1

1
2

( n 1) n i 1

( n i) simplify

1
3

1
6 n

EGL
HGL

n-1

6n

Head loss in a manifold is 1/3

__ of the head loss with constant Q.

EGL

Change in Piezometric Head

in an Outlet Manifold
LM 1 QM
hfi f i

DM 2 g AM
i 1
n

H total

1 QM

2 g AM

6n

2n 1
6n

n-1

VM2
2g

2n 1

LM
f
i
DM

HGL

Total change in
piezometric head

C plong

Note: We have factored out the friction factor knowing

0.25
that f
and thus f is not constant
2

5.74
log 3.7 D Re0.9

EGL

Change in Piezometric Head

in an Inlet Manifold
LM 1 QM
hfi f i

DM 2 g AM
i 1
n

H total

1 QM

2 g AM

n 1

2n 1
6n

n 1
LM

i
n
DM

HGL

i 1

expansion

n-1

VM2 n 1

2g n

2n 1

6n

C plong

This equation gives the difference in piezometric head

between the first port and the last port. Since the two terms
have opposite signs the maximum difference could be at an
intermediate port. We need to determine if one of these
terms dominates to see if the maximum difference really is
between the first and last ports.

Calculating the Control (Orifice)

Pressure Coefficients
0

K Control

2
Q
C plong C pshort
2
1 Q
2
Q
C plong

K Control

2
1 Q

EGL

EGL

HGL

HGL

C plong

For a manifold the short

path head loss is zero (not
including the flow control
head loss)

n-1

LM 2n 1
1
fi
DM 6n

n-1

n 1
LM 2n 1
f

n
D
6
n
M

Minor Loss Coefficient for an

Orifice Port (in or out)
heP K eP

Ke has a value of 1 for an exit and is

nQP QM
close to 1 for an entrance

Vvc2
2g

But this V is the vena contracta velocity. The control

coefficient analysis normalizes everything to the maximum
velocity in the manifold. So lets get the velocity ratio
n vc DP2
VM
QM AP vc

2
Vvc
AM QP
DM
heP K eP

D
VM2

2
n

D
2g
vc
P

2
M

K Control

Vvc VM

K Control

2
DM
n vc DP2

D
K eP
2
n

D
vc P

2
M

Solution Path
The length of the manifold will be
determined by the plant geometry
The spacing of the ports will be set by other
constraints
We need to determine the diameter of the
manifold and the diameter of the ports

EGL

Launder: Traditional Design

Guidelines

HGL

n-1

Recommended port velocity is 0.46 to 0.76

m/s (Water Treatment Plant Design 4th
edition page 7.28)
The corresponding head loss is 3 to 8 cm
through the orifices
How do you design the diameter of the
launder? (coming up)
Would this work if head loss through the
NO!
manifold were an additional 10 cm? _____
Q vc AOrifice 2 g h

1 VPort
h

2 g vc

Design Constraints
For sed tank Inlet Manifold the port velocities and
the manifold diameter are set by the
energy dissipation rate in the flocculator
_____________________________________
For the launder that takes clear water from the top
of the sed tank bays the goal will be to keep head
loss low (we aim for about 5 cm)
For Outlet Manifold that takes sludge from the
bottom of the sed tank bays the goal is to be able
to drain the tanks in a reasonable length of time
(perhaps 30 minutes) (this means that the initial
flow rate would be able to drain the tank in 15
minutes: remember the hole in a bucket analysis)

EGL

Design for Outlet

Launder

HGL

n-1

Given target head loss between sed tank and

clear water channel (5 cm for AguaClara)
8QM 2 CPTotal
hl
g 2 DM 4

DM

8QM 2 CPTotal

2
g

h
l

CPTotal CPLong K Control

Minor loss equation

1
4

Solve the minor loss

0
equation for the manifold
diameter
2
Q
C pLong C pShort
K Control
2
1 Q
2
Q
C pLong
K Control
2
1 Q

Outlet Launder Diameter:

EGL
HGL

n-1

Iterative solution for DM

CPTotal CPLong K Control
CPTotal C pLong
f

C pLong

DM

C pLong

Q2

1
2
2

1 Q 1 Q

K Control

2
Q
C pLong
2
1 Q

0.25

5.74
log

0.9

3.7 D Re

LM 2n 1
f
1
DM 6n

8QM 2 C pLong

g 2 h 1 2

l
Q

1
4

The iterative solution

will converge quickly
because f varies slowly
with Re.

Example Code for Iteration

y0

First guess at solution

Error 1
MaxError _____
While Error > MaxError

Set error to be large to ensure

that loop executes once

a f y0

y1 f a

Error
y0 y1

Return y1

y0 y1
y0 y1

Improved guess
Dimensionless error

Launder Diameter (Approximate

Solution)
8QM 2 C pLong
DM
g 2 h 1 2

l
Q

8QM 2
1
DM
g 2 h 1 2

l
Q

1
4

1
4

In this equation the head loss is

the total head loss for both the
orifices and the pipe flow

C pLong

LM 2n 1
f
1
DM 6n

Here we are omitting the

major (wall shear) head
loss contribution

Example: Launder
What is the minimum launder diameter for a plant flow
rate of 50 L/s divided between 9 bays if we use 5 cm of
head loss? For an approximate solution you can omit
the effect of the major losses. Use a value of 0.8 for the
minimum flow ratio between the last and first orifice

8QM 2
1
DM
g 2 h 1 2

l
Q

1
4

Example: Launder

C pLong

LM 2n 1
f
1
DM 6n

What is the effect of the shear force?

How can we estimate the length of the
launder? We will assume that the sed bay
has a width of 1 m.
What is the length of the sedimentation
tank?
V = 0.8 mm/s

Example: Launder

C pLong

LM 2n 1
f
1
DM 6n

n is the number of orifices (ports). If the

port spacing is 10 cm how many are there? 69
2n 1 1
For large n

6n

LM 2n 1
f

DM 6n
C pLong

6.94m 1
0.02
0.421
0.11m 3

LM 2n 1
f
1 1.42
DM 6n

0.25

5.74
log 3.7 D Re0.9

More exact
solution
8QM
DM
g 2 hl 1 Q2

C pLong

8QM 2 C pLong
DM
g 2 hl 1 Q2

1
4

DM

8 Q

1.421

g 2 h 1 2
l
Q

11.9 cm

What diameter launder do you recommend?

6 inches

1
4

Why is the launder

diameter so large?
(50L/s /9) launder of 6 inches
The head loss in the launder is small and it would
be tempting to use a smaller pipe
Why is such a large pipe necessary?
Why do we even need a launder pipe?
Why not simply place a single large orifice in the
wall connecting to the settled water channel?
We need a method to add head loss at the top of
the plate settlers and then we could eliminate the
launder!

Approach to Find Port

Diameter
Calculate the head loss in
h
the manifold
Subtract 50% of that head
loss from the target head
loss (5 cm) to estimate the
port head loss
Calculate the port diameter
directly using the orifice
equation

EGL
HGL

L
1 QM
f M

DM 2 g AM

AP

n-1

2n 1
6n

QP
vc 2 g h

Launder Ports

Dorificio

4Q

vc 2 g h

Approximately 55 ports
1 launder in each bay
3 bays in each sedimentation tank
3 sedimentation tanks
55 1 3 3 495
Total number of ports = 55*1*3*3=495
3
m
0.05
What is the port flow?
s
mL
Q

101
Orificio

4 101
DOrificio

mL
s

0.62 2g 0.05m

1.447 cm

495

What about Inlet

Manifold Design?

EGL
HGL

n-1

Total head loss is not a constraint (it will be

VERY small)
Energy dissipation rate in the jet created by
the port will set the port diameter
Energy dissipation rate at the inlet of the
manifold determines the manifold diameter
Available pipe sizes for inlet manifold (and
possibly for the ports is a constraint)

Schulz and Okun guidelines:

Note these cause floc breakup!
VPort = 0.2 to 0.3 m/s
The velocity through the ports should be
4x higher than any approaching velocities.
(but to prevent sedimentation approach
velocities need to be 0.15 m/s which would
give velocities of 0.6 m/s!)
3
These guidelines result in
extremely high energy
dissipation rates!

Max

VPort
Jet
vc

DPort vc

Schulz and Okun famous

quote
In practice, one can rarely meet all four basic
requirements because they conflict with one
another; thus a reasonable compromise must
be attained.
Conclusion of inlet design for sedimentation
tanks.
Page 135 in Surface Water Treatment for Communities in Developing Countries

Flow Distribution Equation

for Inlet Manifold
C pLong

n 1
LM 2n 1

DM 6n
n

K Control

C pLong K Control

2
M

HGL

n-1

D
K eP
2
n

D
vc P

2
M

Control resistance
by orifice

C pShort K Control

EGL

DM2
VP

2
n vc DP VM

D
K eP
2
n vc DP
2
n 1

LM 2n 1
DM

eP
2
n
D
6
n
n

D
M
vc
P

n 1
n

LM
DM

2n 1

What can we play with to get a better flow distribution?

6n

Area ratio if the DM and

DP cause the same Max

QM
1
3

7
6

4 Jet

Max vc
AM

6
AP

7
4 Jet
QM

n
1
7

3
6
n

Max
vc

AM
n
AP

1
7

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

.Max

Area ratio to achieve equal

6
7

20

40

60

80

Number of ports per manifold

100

Importance of Area
Ratio

EGL

AM
AP

Ratio of actual port flow to average port flow

1.2

Area Ratio of 0.55

Area Ratio of 0.6
Area Ratio of 0.65
Area Ratio of 0.7

1.1

HGL

0.55

AM
AP

0.6
0.65

66
36

20

0.7

12

n-1

ports

Effect of
pressure
recovery

0.9

Max

0.8

0.7

0.2

0.4

0.6

Normalized distance along manifold

0.8

JetVJet

DJet
3

1.2 1.728

EGL
HGL

Tapered Inlet Manifold

n-1

It may be possible to taper the inlet manifold to

maintain a more uniform velocity.
This will make the head loss term dominate since
there would be no change in kinetic energy
This will keep the velocity higher and reduce floc
sedimentation
Flow distribution?

DM
K eP
2
nK vc DP
2
n 1

LM 2n 1
DM
f

K eP
2
n
D
6
n
nK
D
M
vc
P

Tapered Manifold
Flow Distribution

EGL
HGL

n-1

Tapered. It will actually be better than this because head loss in the
pipe will be less than predicted because the boundary layer will be
laminar for much of the length of the manifold.

Ratio of actual port flow to average port flow

1.2

Area Ratio of 0.55

Area Ratio of 0.6
Area Ratio of 0.65
Area Ratio of 0.7

AM
AP

1.1

0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

66

36
20
12

ports

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.2

0.4

0.6

Normalized distance along manifold

0.8

Over correction!
1
Not much better!

Possibilities to improve flow

distribution between ports
Optimize tapering
Use ports with long tubes to add small
amounts of head loss to improve flow
control (check fL/D vs K)
Maybe this is good enough without
tapering?

EGL
HGL

Optimal Tapering?
2
LP VM i
hfi f i
DM 2 g

H expansion

VM i 1 VM i VM i
LP
fi

DM 2 g
g
VM2 i

VM i

VM i 1

LP
fi
1
2 DM

VM i

M i 1

VM

4QM i

n-1

Set the head loss equal to

the pressure recovery
and solve for the optimal
velocity in each section
of the manifold.
QM i VM i

VM i VM i

VM i 1
L
fi P
2

DM i

2
DM
i

4QM i

VM

Tapered Velocity Profile to

Achieve Uniform Port Flow

Tapered. It will actually be better than this because head loss in the
pipe will be less than predicted because the boundary layer will be
laminar for much of the length of the manifold.

Tapered. It will actually be better than this because head loss in the
pipe will be less than predicted because the boundary layer will be
laminar for much of the length of the manifold.

0.18

Manifold velocity (m/s)

Ratio of actual port flow to average port flow

1.01

0.99

0.97

0.2

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

Area Ratio of 0.55

Area Ratio of 0.6
Area Ratio of 0.65
Area Ratio of 0.7

0.98

Area Ratio of 0.55

Area Ratio of 0.6
Area Ratio of 0.65
Area Ratio of 0.7

0.2

0.4

0.6

Normalized distance along manifold

0.4

0.6

0.8

Normalized distance along manifold

More work needs to be done to see how this velocity

profile changes for different manifold diameters,
lengths, and flows.

0.8

Floc Roll Up at Agalteca

Flow Straightening Tubes to

Eliminate Circulation

One more Issue: Vena Contracta

with High Velocity Manifold
The vena contracta at each port must be
much more pronounced (small vc) when
the velocity inside the manifold is high.
If the vena contracta, vc, is smaller, then
the velocities are higher and the energy
dissipation rate is higher.
This requires further investigation

Possible Wake Generating half pipe to reduce

horizontal velocity at port entrance

The internal half pipe that extends into the manifold on the upstream side will
create a low velocity wake at the port entrance and thus could reduce the vena
contracta.
We should make the external flow straightening tubes as short as possible so
they are stronger (lower moment when the manifold is being handled during
maintenance and construction). Presumably the length needs to be a certain
number of tube diameters. Id guess order 2 diameters

Manifold Conclusions
Outlet manifolds require an iterative design to get
the manifold diameter
Inlet manifold design has complex constraints
Avoid breaking flocs
Dont let flocs settle (ignore if ports are on bottom)
Distribute flow uniformly
Eliminate horizontal velocity in the sed tank
that provides a real engineering challenge that we are
still working to perfect

P
rdida de Carga Acumu

20

Head loss in an AguaClara Plant

10

50

0
0.01

P
Cumulative
head loss
(cm)
rdida de Carga Acumulada
(cm)
P

rdida de Carga Acumulada (cm)

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
0
0.01 0.01

0.495

Orificio
de laOrifice
Mezcla Rpida
Rapid Mix
Tubo
la Mezcla
RapiddeMix
Pipe Rpida
Floculador
Flocculator
Launder
Tubo
de Recoleccin
Settled water
weir Decantada
Vertedero
de Agua

Why isnt there much head loss between the

flocculator and the launder pipe?
How do we ensure that the flow divides
equally
between
sedimentation tanks?
0.495
1
0.495

10 50
Orificio de la Mezcla Rpida
Orificio de la Mezcla Rpida
L/sTubo de la Mezcla Rpida

Settled Water Weir: Controls the Plant Level

H is water level measured from the top of the weir

2
vcW 2 g H 3/ 2 With a maximum H of 5
3
cm the sedimentation tank
water level can change a
3
Q
W
total of 10 cm! Launders
3/2
2 vc 2 g H
have 5 cm of head loss
also.
Q

3
W
2

0.62

m
0.05
s
m
3/2
9.8 2 0.05m
s

Q 0.05

m
s

H 5cm
W

Kvc 2g H

2.443 m

A tour of the plant

10

Water Levels

Different vertical scales for graph and drawing!

0
0.01

P
rdida de Carga Acumulada (cm)

Cumulative head loss (cm)

40

0.495

Orificio
de laOrifice
Mezcla Rpida
Rapid Mix
Tubo
la Mezcla
RapiddeMix
Pipe Rpida
Flocculator
Floculador
Launder
Tubo
de Recoleccin
Settled water
weir Decantada
Vertedero
de Agua

30

20

P
r d i d a d e C a r g a A c u m u l a d a ( c m )

P
rdida de Carga Acumu

20

40

30

20

10

0
. 01

0. 495

Or if ic io
de
la
Me
zcl a
Rp id a
Tub o
de
la
M e z c la
Rp id a
Flo c
u l a do r
Tub o
de
R
e c ol e c c
in
Ve rte d e
r o
de
Agu a
De
c a nt a da

10

0
0.01

0.495

Orificio de la Mezcla Rpida

Hydraulic Conclusions
The water level in the plant is set by the settled water
weir
The most significant head loss in the sedimentation
tank is the orifices in the launder
The water level increases through the flocculator.
The entrance tank water level is significantly higher
than the flocculator due to head loss in the rapid mix
orifice
The stock tanks have to be even higher to be able to
flow by gravity thru the chemical doser and into the
entrance tank.