This article was downloaded by: [125.161.27.

210]
On: 02 March 2015, At: 00:49
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Experimental study of energy loss through

submerged trashracks
a

Shawn P. Clark , Jonathan M. Tsikata & Melissa Haresign

a

Department of Civil Engineering , University of Manitoba , Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Department of Mechanical Engineering , University of Manitoba , Winnipeg, MB, Canada

E-mail:
c

Department of Civil Engineering , University of Manitoba , Winnipeg, MB, Canada Email:

Published online: 18 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Shawn P. Clark , Jonathan M. Tsikata & Melissa Haresign (2010) Experimental study of energy loss
through submerged trashracks, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 48:1, 113-118, DOI: 10.1080/00221680903566026
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221680903566026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010), pp. 113 118
doi:10.1080/00221680903566026
# 2010 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research

Technical note

Experimental study of energy loss through submerged trashracks

SHAWN P. CLARK, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Email: clarks@cc.umanitoba.ca (author for correspondence)

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

JONATHAN M. TSIKATA, Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba,

Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Email: umtsikat@cc.umanitoba.ca
MELISSA HARESIGN, Undergraduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Email: umharesm@cc.umanitoba.ca
ABSTRACT
Experimental results for several trashrack models placed in a pressurized rectangular conduit are presented. The tests were performed for both straight
and oblique approach ows. Trashrack models of different bar cross-sectional shapes, bar thicknesses, bar depths and bar spacing were studied for
a range of velocities. The results indicate that the head loss across the trashrack increases with increasing approach velocity, ow inclination, and
blockage ratio. Lower head losses were observed for bars with cross-sectional shape other than rectangular. Results were found to differ only moderately
from the previous trashrack energy loss literature based almost entirely on open channel ow experiments. An equation has been developed that
well represents the current experimental ndings.

Keywords: Energy loss, experimental hydraulics, sh mortality, hydraulic efciency, trashrack

1

Oregon. Test investigations of trashracks are by no means a

new endeavour. Kirschmer (1926) and Spangler (1929) studied
trashrack bars of various sizes, shapes and bar spacing. Kirschmer
(1926) developed from his tests

Introduction

Trashracks are comprised of an array of bars tted at intakes of

hydroelectric generating stations to prevent turbine damage
from debris within the ow. Because of their simple geometry
and availability, rectangular bars are typically used for trashracks. Large clear spacing between the individual bars can
result in reduced energy losses with a low probability of preventing sh entrainment, while tightly spaced bars can physically
prevent sh entrainment at the cost of an increase in energy
loss through the trashrack.
A large body of literature deals with understanding the resistance to ow caused by objects of different shapes. Commonly,
the drag coefcient of one specic object rather than an
array is reported as a function of the Reynolds number (e.g.
Naudascher 1991). The hydraulic resistance of a vast range of
objects and ttings is summarized by Idelchik (2001). Recently,
computational uid dynamics modelling was used by Khan et al.
(2004) to study the effect of partially blocking a trashrack in

 s 4=3 U 2 
sin a;
Dh h
2g
b

(1)

where s is the bar thickness measured at its thickest section, b the

clear spacing between bars at the largest ow constriction, U
the approach discharge velocity, a the trashrack angle to the
horizontal, and h the shape factor. Spangler (1929), Fellenius
and Lindquist (1929), and Osborn (1968) developed equations
similar to Eq. (1). The head loss was related to the geometric
parameters multiplied by the approach velocity head. Meusburger
et al. (2001) proposed an equation of the same form with a slightly
more involved description of the geometric parameters, however.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (1987) summarizes some of these results, indicating that all tests were conducted

Revision received 23 September 2009/Open for discussion until 31 August 2010.

ISSN 0022-1686 print/ISSN 1814-2079 online
http://www.informaworld.com
113

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

114

S.P. Clark et al.

in open channel ow, and that the applicability of the formulae to

submerged trashracks is unknown. This concern was the driving
force behind the current research. Interested readers may refer to
Wu and Molinas (2005) who investigated energy losses through
open channel contractions.
This study is one component of a larger project involving
Manitoba Hydro, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the
University of Manitoba. The question arose whether the trashrack bar clear spacing could be reduced to physically prevent
sh entrainment into the turbines while maintaining a reasonable
level of hydraulic efciency. The research objectives were to
study the hydraulics near the trashracks and to develop data
sets for calibration and verication of a computational uid
dynamics model. To accomplish these tasks, three different test
sets were conducted. The rst two sets made in open channel
ow are summarized by Tsikata et al. (2009a, 2009b) and
Tsikata (2008). Since trashracks at all the Manitoba Hydro
generating stations are submerged, the third test set, which is
the focus below, utilized piezometer taps to determine head
loss across submerged trashrack models.
2
2.1

Experimental set-up and measurement procedure

Test facility and measurement technique

Experiments were conducted at the Hydraulics Research &

Testing Facility, University of Manitoba. Figure 1 shows a
scheme of the main apparatus components to ensure pressurized
conditions across the trashracks. The main channel is composed
of two 2.44 m long acrylic sections anged at either end. Each
section is 0.305 m deep and 0.455 m wide. The two sections
are joined at the middle by a rectangular insert of the same
cross section, 0.263 m long and secured via anges. The trashrack bars were secured rmly in the insert before bolted to the
main channel. Seventeen piezometer taps of 1.59 mm diameter
were inserted along the sidewall of the main channel, connected
to transparent exible tubes of 3.18 mm inner diameter and
mounted to a manometer board. Pressure uctuations within
the rectangular channel were usually of the order +1 mm,
while the resolution was better than +0.5 mm.
2.2. Test conditions
Figure 2 shows the notation used to describe the trashrack bar
conguration and channel orientation. The tests were grouped

Figure 1 Schematic side view of experimental apparatus (not to scale)

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010)

Figure 2 Scheme of channel inserts and relevant dimensions for

(a) straight and (b) oblique approach ow

Figure 3 Cross-sectional shapes of bars tested (dimensions in mm)

into three series. Series 1 used acrylic-made rectangular bars to

investigate the effects of bar thickness, bar spacing as well as
approach velocity on the head loss. Dimensions and spacing,
including the number of trashrack bars n, are summarized in
Table 1, ordered from lowest to highest blockage ratio. The
tests were conducted for straight approach ow u 08. Prior
to a test with trashrack bars, measurements were conducted
with no bars in the channel to determine the baseline energy
losses within the channel. The nal two columns, Dh
and
Dh

are the dimensionless head loss coefcients, which are
discussed further below.
The effects of approach ow angle u and approach ow
velocity on the head loss were investigated in Series 2.
Values of u 08, 108, 208 and 308 were considered (Fig. 2)
for s 12 mm and L 100 m, respectively. Table 2 summarizes
these test conditions.
In Series 3, the effect of bar shape and approach velocity on
the head loss was investigated (Fig. 3). Shape S3 T1 is based
on the NACA 0012 airfoil. Shape S3 T2 uses the same
NACA 0012 leading edge, which is then mirrored on its trailing
edge. Shape S3 T3 is based on a commercially available bar,
and is the only bar with inconsistent values of s and L.
Shape S3 T5 has a 6 mm radius at the leading edge. Table 3
summarizes the test conditions for Series 3, including the
shape factor h, to be discussed below.

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010)

3
3.1

Experimental study of energy loss through submerged trashracks

Results and discussion

Variation of pressure head

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

The variation of pressure head h with the streamwise distance has

a similar trend for all tests. In general, the pressure head was nearly
constant far upstream of the trashrack models. At their leading
edges, h decreased with a more pronounced decrease within the
bars, consistent with the increasing velocity head associated
with the reduction in the net ow area. The pressure head then
increased rapidly from its minimum to a nearly constant value
far downstream of the trashrack models. It, however, did not
recover to its upstream value. The head loss across the bars Dh
was calculated by subtracting the average of the pressure readings
of holes 13 through 16 from the average of holes 2 through 5.

3.2

Head loss

The head loss across the trashracks increases with the approach
velocity U. Figure 4(a) shows Dh versus U for various blockage
ratios p for Series 1. As expected, the values of Dh increase
with U. Further, Dh increases rapidly with p. Superimposed on
Figure 4(a) are the lines given by using Eq. (2) reported
subsequently. Figure 4(b) shows the dimensionless head loss
coefcient Dh
Dh/(U2/2g) for selected tests, demonstrating
independence of the Reynolds number R Us/n, because of
the relatively high R and the fact that separation occurs
consistently at sharp edges of rectangular bars (Naudascher
1991). The results for each test can therefore be collapsed into
one dimensionless head loss coefcient Dh
, indicated by the
dotted lines and the values in the gure legend. Values of Dh

for all tests are reported in Tables 1 3.

115

Flow visualization tests using dye tracer centred upstream

of selected trashrack bars conrmed that the ow separates
dramatically from the leading bar corners, creating a recirculation zone on both side bar faces. Tsikata et al. (2009a)
made similar observations using PIV. The width of the
recirculation zone was observed to increase with increasing
velocity U.
Figure 4(c) demonstrates the effect of blockage ratio on Dh

,
calculated by subtracting the value of Dh
for the empty channel
test from the corresponding Dh
values of each trashrack model.
Thus, the effects of frictional losses and minor losses associated
with the bolted anges of the channel insert were removed. The
gure shows that Dh

increases linearly with increasing p2.
Also shown in Fig. 4(c) is a line of best t passing through the
origin with a slope of 7.43.
The effect of oblique approach ow on trashrack head
loss Dh and Dh

is shown in Fig. 5. The head loss increases
with u, yet for u 08 and u 108 there is no signicant
effect on Dh. Head losses are increased by 6 and 32% for
u 208 and u 308, respectively. A similar trend follows
from Tsikata et al. (2009b) for straight approach ow with
angled bars, rather than oblique ow with straight bars.
Figure 5(b) and Table 2 show that Dh
, Dh

for Series 2
also increase with U.
The head loss results obtained for Series 3 are shown in Fig. 6.
As previously, the head loss increases with U. Table 3 summarizes the values of Dh
, Dh

and h. They decrease as the shape
becomes more streamlined. Figure 6 shows that the head loss
is highest for rectangular bars (S1 T4), but least for the
NACA 0012 bars (S3 T1). The Dh values are quite similar for
S3 T1 and S3 T2. It was observed that rounding the leading
bar edge reduced the values of Dh signicantly, consistent with

Table 1 Summary of test conditions for Series 1 and non-dimensional head loss
Test

s (m)

L (m)

L/s

b (m)

s/b

Dh

Dh

Empty
S1 T1
S1 T2
S1 T3
S1 T4
S1 T5
S1 T6
S1 T7

0
3
3
14
7
21
7
14

0.012
0.018
0.0054
0.012
0.0054
0.018
0.012

0.100
0.100
0.046
0.100
0.046
0.100
0.100

8.33
5.56
8.52
8.33
8.52
5.56
8.33

0.140
0.134
0.027
0.053
0.016
0.047
0.021

0.086
0.134
0.200
0.226
0.338
0.383
0.571

0
0.079
0.119
0.166
0.185
0.249
0.277
0.369

0.056
0.141
0.200
0.293
0.334
0.515
0.556
1.089

0
0.085
0.144
0.237
0.278
0.459
0.500
1.033

Table 2 Summary of test conditions for Series 2 and non-dimensional head loss
Test

s (m)

L (m)

b (m)

S1 T4
S2 T1
S2 T2
S2 T3

7
7
7
7

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100

0.053
0.053
0.053
0.053

0.185
0.185
0.185
0.185

u (8)
0
10
20
30

Dh

Dh

0.334
0.332
0.411
0.498

0.278
0.276
0.355
0.442

116

S.P. Clark et al.

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

Table 3

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010)

Summary of test conditions for Series 3, non-dimensional head loss and shape factor

Test

s (m)

L (m)

b (m)

Dh

Dh

Empty
S3 T1
S3 T2
S3 T3
S3 T4
S3 T5
S1 T4

0
7
7
7
7
7
7

0.0120
0.0120
0.0132
0.0120
0.0120
0.0120

0.100
0.100
0.110
0.100
0.100
0.100

0.053
0.053
0.053
0.052
0.053
0.053

0
0.185
0.185
0.203
0.185
0.185
0.185

0.056
0.087
0.097
0.164
0.187
0.244
0.334

0
0.031
0.041
0.108
0.131
0.188
0.278

0
0.112
0.147
0.339
0.471
0.676
1

Figure 6 Results from Series 3 showing Dh(U), () Eq. (2)

Figure 4 Results from rectangular bar tests showing (a) Dh(U) with
() Eq. (2), (b) Dh
(R), (c) Dh

(p2)

to a maximum of some 10 mm for U 1.86 m/s. Near the

downstream bar end, the magnitude of the dye uctuation
increased substantially, suggesting an increase in turbulence
intensity. Conversely, for the NACA 0012 bar in test S3 T1,
the dye trace was always within approximately 2 mm of
the bar and therefore no recirculation zone was observed.
Furthermore, the magnitude of the dye trace uctuations at the
downstream bar end suggested a much smaller turbulence level
than in test S1 T4. Because of the lack of denite separation
initiation locations, a slight dependence on Reynolds number
was observed with the more streamlined bars.
The present results of the head losses may be represented by
2

Dh 7:43h1 2:44tan up
Figure 5 Results from Series 2 showing (a) Dh(U,u), () Eq. (2),
(b) Dh

(u)

Tsikata (2008). For example, if rectangular bars with round

leading edge (S3 T5) are used, the head loss decreases by
32% compared with rectangular bars, while streamlining the
bar leading edge (S3 T4) decreases the head loss by 53%.
Comparing the values of Dh

for tests S3 T1, S3 T2 and
S3 T4, which all have the same leading edge, shows that
there is a benet of having a more streamlined trailing edge in
addition to a streamlined leading edge.
The ow visualization tests demonstrated the effect of bar
shape on ow separation. Separation initiated at the upstream
corners of the rectangular bar in test S1 T4, and the width of
the subsequent recirculation zone at the bar side face increased


U2
;
2g

(2)

where h 1 for rectangular bars. Values of h for other bar

shapes tested are summarized in Table 3.

3.3

Comparison among head loss equations

The head loss Dh was estimated using several equations from the
literature and compared with the data of Series 1. A linear trend
line passing through the origin was tted to the data. Table 4
presents the slope of the trend line and its coefcient of
determination R2. The results were further assessed by
calculating the root-mean-squared error. Table 4 shows that
several equations over-predict the head losses measured herein,
yet R2 are similar for all equations. Since the variations in
slope and R2 for the literature data are not signicantly different

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010)

Experimental study of energy loss through submerged trashracks

Table 4 Summary of parameters for comparing head loss equations

Researcher

Slope

R2

RMSE

Kirschmer (1926)
Spangler (1929)
Fellenius and Lindquist (1929)
Meusburger et al. (2001)
Osborn (1968)
Present study, Eq. (2)

1.17
1.13
0.93
1.19
1.05
0.97

0.982
0.982
0.976
0.989
0.985
0.976

0.0066
0.0056
0.0043
0.0069
0.0035
0.0038

from Eq. (2), the former appear to be valid for estimating head
loss through submerged trashracks.

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

Conclusions

Energy loss across submerged trashracks was studied by examining the effect of trashrack bar thickness, spacing, shape, velocity
and angle of the approach ow. An equation was developed
that reasonably predicts the measured head loss. The following
conclusions can be made from this experimental study:
.
.

Head loss is a function of blockage ratio, approach ow angle

and velocity, and bar shape over the range of test conditions.
Head loss is signicantly reduced by using the non-rectangular
bar shapes. Streamlining of both the up- and downstream bar
edges reduces energy loss more than streamlining only one
edge. The bars need not be symmetric to provide a signicant
head loss decrease.
Approach ow angles less than or equal to 108 have a negligible effect on head loss, whereas the increase is considerable
otherwise.
Based on the present results and literature data, the head loss
associated with water surface disturbance up- and downstream
of the trashracks for open channel ow are negligible. Previous
equations formulated for head loss through trashracks placed
in open channel with trashrack bars protruded above the
water surface also provide reasonable estimates of head loss
through submerged trashracks.

The results presented herein help trashrack designers to assess

the hydraulic implications of increasing trashrack blockage ratios
and changing trashrack bar shape. Designers will also need to
consider the optimum clear spacing to be used for specic
types of sh, the increased operation and maintenance cost due
to the greater frequency of debris and/or frazil ice accumulation
on the upstream trashrack edge, as well as the susceptibility
of these shapes to corrosion that may eventually reduce the
benets that the initial shape presented.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dennis Lemke, Efrem Teklemariam
and Kevin Sydor from Manitoba Hydro, Christos Katopodis

117

and Haitham Ghamry from the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, as well as Mark Tachie from the University of
Manitoba for their assistance throughout this project. Thanks
also to Nicholas Kehler for constructing the test apparatus.

Notation
b
clear spacing between bars (m)
g
gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
h
pressure head (m)
L
bar depth measured parallel to ow (m)
n
number of trashrack bars
p
blockage ratio
s
bar thickness at thickest section point (m)
U approach ow velocity (m/s)
a
trashrack angle (8)
h
shape factor
u
approach ow angle (8)
n
kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
Dh head loss (m)
Dh
head loss coefcient
Dh

dimensionless head loss coefcient

References
Fellenius, W., Lindquist, E.G.W. (1929). Experiments on
the head loss caused by protecting racks at water-power
plants. Hydraulic laboratory practice. ASME, New York,
533 538.
Idelchik, I.E. (2001). Handbook of hydraulic resistance, 3rd ed.
Begell House Publishers, Redding, CT.
Khan, L.A., Wicklein, E.A., Rashid, M., Ebner, L.L., Richards,
N.A. (2004). Computational uid dynamics modeling of
turbine intake hydraulics at a hydropower plant. J. Hydraulic
Res. 42(1), 6169.
Kirschmer, O. (1926). Untersuchungen uber den Gefallsverlust
an Rechen. Hydraulisches Institut Mitteilung 1, D. Thoma,
ed., Technische Hochschule, Munchen, [in German].
Meusburger, H., Volkart, P., Minor, H.-E. (2001). A new
improved formula for calculating trashrack losses. Proc.
29th IAHR Congress, Beijing, China, 4, 804809.
Naudascher, E. (1991). Hydrodynamic forces. IAHR hydraulic
structures design manual 3, Balkema, Rotterdam NL.
Osborn, J.F. (1968). Rectangular-bar trashrack and bafe
headlosses. J. Power Div., ASCE. 94(PO2), 111123.
Spangler, J. (1929). Investigation of the loss through trash racks
inclined obliquely to the stream ow. Hydraulic laboratory
practice, ASME, New York, 461 470.
Tsikata, J.M. (2008). Experimental investigation of turbulent
ow through trashracks. MSc thesis. University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB.

118

S.P. Clark et al.

Downloaded by [125.161.27.210] at 00:49 02 March 2015

Tsikata, J.M., Katopodis, C., Tachie, M.F. (2009a). Experimental

study of ow near model trashracks. J. Hydraulic Res. 47(2),
275280.
Tsikata, J.M., Tachie, M.F., Katopodis, C. (2009b). Particle
image velocimetry study of ow near trashrack models.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 135(8), 671684.

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48, No. 1 (2010)

United States Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Hydraulic

design criteria. Sheet 010-7. Open channel ow trash rack
losses, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.
Wu, B., Molinas, A. (2005). Energy losses and threshold
conditions for choking in channel contractions. J. Hydraulic
Res. 43(2), 139148.