ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

WATER ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

CE74.9001A
(RESEARCH DESIGN AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODS)

LABORATORY EXERCISE: 1
CALIBRATION OF WEIR (STEADY AND UNSTEADY CASES)

Submitted by
Mr. Sajal Kumar Adhikary
Student ID: 105599
Group No: 6

March 10, 2008

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

1 Introduction

The weir is one of the oldest structures used to measure the flow rates of water in open
channels and rivers in connection to water supply and sewage plants. The discharge over a
weir is a function of the weir geometry and of weir head. There are different types of weirs,
classified according to the geometric shape of the portion of the weir over which the flowing
water is in contact. Rectangular and V-notch (triangular) are the most common shapes for
weirs. If properly calibrated, weirs can measure the flow rate to within plus or minus 2
percent. By simply knowing the dimensions of the notch of the weir, as well as the height of
water above the crest (head of water, H), it is possible calculate the amount of flow over the
weir, by using the theoretical equations for discharge over different type weirs.

2 Objectives

The overall objective of this lab exercise is to familiar with a hands-on experience about the
different techniques of weir calibration in the laboratory and to obtain a through knowledge to
compare the results using corresponding analytical solutions to find limitations (if any) and its
application in practical problems of measurement techniques. The specific objectives of this
exercise is:
• To determine the head-discharge relationship (calibration equation) of a 900 V-notch
weir using the falling head technique (unsteady flow conditions).
• To calibrate the same weir again under steady state flow conditions (constant head
technique) to compare the results obtained for both cases.

3 Experimental Procedures

3.1 Falling Head Method (Unsteady Flow Condition)

• The reference head of the weir is measured using the manometer, which is attached, on
the weir tank.
• The weir is blocked with a wooden board so that it is free from leakage of water.
• The tank is filled with water up to the level appropriate for measurement.
• The clock is kept close to the gauge attached to the side of the weir tank.
• The video camera is focused on both the gauge and the clock.
• The video is started for recording and at the same time the clock is turned on while
swiftly removing the wooden covers from its position to allow water to flow over weir.
• Recording is stopped when there is no more appreciable fall of water level in the gauge.
• The video recording is watched and the water level for each time interval is recorded in
the laboratory notebook.

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 2

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

3.2 Constant Head Method (Steady Flow Condition)

• The weir reference head is measured using the manometer attached on the weir tank.
• The desired head is determined for each trial that would cover the range from minimum
to maximum flow (10 different head has been taken to have a reasonable range).
• The appropriate discharge is set in the weir corresponding to the chosen head by
adjusting the valve on the by-pass pipe and the flow is allowed to become steady.
• Now, the measurement of the actual weir head is taken and the corresponding
discharge reading on the Electromagnetic Flow Meter attached on the pipeline is
recorded.
• The discharge is changed after each measurement has been finished and is repeated
steps 3 and 4 until the whole range of weir head (minimum to maximum) is covered.

4 Experimental Data

4.1 Falling Head Method

Table 1: Observed Data (From Video) for Falling Head Method
Time Head, H (cm) for Test No. Time Head, H (cm) for Test No.
(sec) 1 2 3 4 (sec) 1 2 3 4
0 43.70 43.20 43.80 43.80 20 15.90 16.00 15.80 15.90
1 39.00 39.50 39.40 39.20 22 15.00 15.10 14.90 14.80
2 35.00 36.00 35.40 35.00 24 14.40 14.50 14.10 14.20
3 32.50 32.30 33.20 32.20 26 13.80 14.00 13.80 13.40
4 30.50 30.00 31.00 31.80 28 13.20 13.30 13.00 12.90
5 28.00 28.00 28.80 28.90 30 13.00 13.00 12.90 12.30
6 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.90 35 12.00 12.10 12.20 11.90
7 25.00 25.10 25.00 25.10 40 11.00 11.20 11.10 10.30
8 24.00 24.00 24.10 24.00 45 10.30 10.00 10.20 9.90
9 23.00 23.10 22.80 22.90 50 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.20
10 22.10 22.50 21.90 21.90 55 9.20 9.20 9.1 8.80
11 21.00 21.00 20.90 20.80 60 8.50 8.80 8.5 8.00
12 20.50 20.70 20.00 19.90 65 8.20 8.30 8.1 7.90
13 19.60 19.50 19.20 19.10 70 7.80 8.00 7.8 7.40
14 19.20 19.30 18.60 19.00 75 7.50 7.60 7.4 7.20
15 18.30 18.20 18.00 17.90 80 7.20 7.20 7.2 7.10
16 17.80 17.40 17.90 17.50 85 7.00 7.10 7.1 6.90
17 17.20 17.10 17.00 16.90 90 6.80 6.60 6.7 6.70
18 16.80 16.70 16.80 16.50 95 6.50 6.40 6.4 6.20
19 16.40 16.30 16.10 16.00 100 6.10 6.10 6.3 6.10

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 3

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

4.2 Constant Head Method

Table 2: Observed Data for Constant Head Method

Test Head Discharge Discharge
3
No. H (cm) Q (m /h) Q (m3/s)
1 18.50 97.78 0.02716
2 18.00 77.86 0.02163
3 17.50 70.96 0.01971
4 16.50 64.00 0.01778
5 16.00 59.98 0.01666
6 14.50 48.05 0.01335
7 15.00 49.70 0.01381
8 13.00 34.59 0.00961
9 11.50 19.95 0.00554
10 7.00 6.73 0.00187
11 8.00 13.53 0.00376

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 4

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

5 Data Analysis and Results

5.1 Falling Head Method

Table 3: Observed and calculated data for 1st experiment

Time (sec) ∆t (sec) H (cm) H (m) V (m3) Q (m 3/s) Q (m3/s)

0 - 43.70 0.437 1.603 0.1180
1 1 39.00 0.390 1.430 0.0703
2 1 35.00 0.350 1.284 -0.1180 0.0856
3 1 32.50 0.325 1.192 -0.0703 0.0764
4 1 30.50 0.305 1.119 -0.0856 0.0520
5 1 28.00 0.280 1.027 -0.0764 0.0458
6 1 26.50 0.265 0.972 -0.0520 0.0342
7 1 25.00 0.250 0.917 -0.0458 0.0336
8 1 24.00 0.240 0.880 -0.0342 0.0397
9 1 23.00 0.230 0.844 -0.0336 0.0281
10 1 22.10 0.221 0.811 -0.0397 0.0251
11 1 21.00 0.210 0.770 -0.0281 0.0232
12 1 20.50 0.205 0.752 -0.0251 0.0232
13 1 19.60 0.196 0.719 -0.0232 0.0281
14 1 19.20 0.192 0.704 -0.0232 0.0189
15 1 18.30 0.183 0.671 -0.0281 0.0189
16 1 17.80 0.178 0.653 -0.0189 0.0128
17 1 17.20 0.172 0.631 -0.0189
18 1 16.80 0.168 0.616 -0.0128
19 1 16.40 0.164 0.601
20 1 15.90 0.159 0.583 0.0101
22 2 15.00 0.150 0.550
24 2 14.40 0.144 0.528 -0.0101
26 2 13.80 0.138 0.506 0.0098
28 2 13.20 0.132 0.484
30 2 13.00 0.130 0.477 -0.0098 0.0065
35 5 12.00 0.120 0.440 0.0039
40 5 11.00 0.110 0.403 -0.0065 0.0037
45 5 10.30 0.103 0.378 -0.0039
50 5 9.80 0.098 0.359 -0.0037 0.0037
55 5 9.20 0.092 0.337
60 5 8.50 0.085 0.312 -0.0037
65 5 8.20 0.082 0.301 0.0022
70 5 7.80 0.078 0.286 0.0018
75 5 7.50 0.075 0.275 -0.0022 0.0012
80 5 7.20 0.072 0.264 -0.0018
85 5 7.00 0.070 0.257 -0.0012
90 5 6.80 0.068 0.249
95 5 6.50 0.065 0.238 0.1180
100 5 6.10 0.061 0.224 0.0703

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 5

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Table 4: Observed and calculated data for 2nd experiment

Time (sec) ∆t (sec) H (cm) H (m) V (m3) Q (m3/s) Q (m 3/s)

0 - 43.20 0.432 1.584
1 1 39.50 0.395 1.449
2 1 36.00 0.360 1.320 -0.1394 0.1394
3 1 32.30 0.323 1.185 -0.1131 0.1131
4 1 30.00 0.300 1.100 -0.0733 0.0733
5 1 28.00 0.280 1.027 -0.0630 0.0630
6 1 26.50 0.265 0.972 -0.0520 0.0520
7 1 25.10 0.251 0.921 -0.0465 0.0465
8 1 24.00 0.240 0.880 -0.0367 0.0367
9 1 23.10 0.231 0.847
10 1 22.50 0.225 0.825
11 1 21.00 0.210 0.770 -0.0330 0.0330
12 1 20.70 0.207 0.759 -0.0263 0.0263
13 1 19.50 0.195 0.715 -0.0257 0.0257
14 1 19.30 0.193 0.708 -0.0196 0.0196
15 1 18.20 0.182 0.667
16 1 17.40 0.174 0.638 -0.0177 0.0177
17 1 17.10 0.171 0.627
18 1 16.70 0.167 0.612 -0.0159 0.0159
19 1 16.30 0.163 0.598
20 1 16.00 0.160 0.587
22 2 15.10 0.151 0.554
24 2 14.50 0.145 0.532
26 2 14.00 0.140 0.513 -0.0119 0.0119
28 2 13.30 0.133 0.488
30 2 13.00 0.130 0.477 -0.0098 0.0098
35 5 12.10 0.121 0.444
40 5 11.20 0.112 0.411 -0.0089 0.0089
45 5 10.00 0.100 0.367 -0.0050 0.0050
50 5 9.80 0.098 0.359
55 5 9.20 0.092 0.337 -0.0040 0.0040
60 5 8.80 0.088 0.323 -0.0033 0.0033
65 5 8.30 0.083 0.304 -0.0029 0.0029
70 5 8.00 0.080 0.293 -0.0023 0.0023
75 5 7.60 0.076 0.279
80 5 7.20 0.072 0.264 -0.0013 0.0013
85 5 7.10 0.071 0.260
90 5 6.60 0.066 0.242
95 5 6.40 0.064 0.235
100 5 6.10 0.061 0.224

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 6

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Table 5: Observed and calculated data for 3rd experiment

Time (sec) ∆t (sec) H (cm) H (m) V (m3) Q (m 3/s) Q (m 3/s)

0 - 43.80 0.438 1.606
1 1 39.40 0.394 1.445
2 1 35.40 0.354 1.298 -0.1112 0.1112
3 1 33.20 0.332 1.218
4 1 31.00 0.310 1.137 -0.0801 0.0801
5 1 28.80 0.288 1.056
6 1 26.50 0.265 0.972 -0.0740 0.0740
7 1 25.00 0.250 0.917
8 1 24.10 0.241 0.884
9 1 22.80 0.228 0.836 -0.0422 0.0422
10 1 21.90 0.219 0.803
11 1 20.90 0.209 0.767 -0.0361 0.0361
12 1 20.00 0.200 0.734 -0.0318 0.0318
13 1 19.20 0.192 0.704 -0.0251 0.0251
14 1 18.60 0.186 0.682 -0.0238 0.0238
15 1 18.00 0.180 0.660
16 1 17.90 0.179 0.656 -0.0196 0.0196
17 1 17.00 0.170 0.623
18 1 16.80 0.168 0.616 -0.0147 0.0147
19 1 16.10 0.161 0.590
20 1 15.80 0.158 0.579
22 2 14.90 0.149 0.546
24 2 14.10 0.141 0.517
26 2 13.80 0.138 0.506 -0.0107 0.0107
28 2 13.00 0.130 0.477
30 2 12.90 0.129 0.473
35 5 12.20 0.122 0.447
40 5 11.10 0.111 0.407 -0.0084 0.0084
45 5 10.20 0.102 0.374 -0.0042 0.0042
50 5 9.80 0.098 0.359 -0.0035 0.0035
55 5 9.1 0.091 0.334
60 5 8.5 0.085 0.312
65 5 8.1 0.081 0.297
70 5 7.8 0.078 0.286 -0.0027 0.0027
75 5 7.4 0.074 0.271 -0.0024 0.0024
80 5 7.2 0.072 0.264
85 5 7.1 0.071 0.260 -0.0018 0.0018
90 5 6.7 0.067 0.246
95 5 6.4 0.064 0.235
100 5 6.3 0.063 0.231

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 7

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Table 6: Observed and calculated data for 4th experiment

Time (sec) ∆t (sec) H (cm) H (m) V (m3) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s)
0 - 43.80 0.438 1.606
1 1 39.20 0.392 1.438
2 1 35.00 0.350 1.284 -0.1406 0.1406
3 1 32.20 0.322 1.181
4 1 31.80 0.318 1.166
5 1 28.90 0.289 1.060 -0.1064 0.1064
6 1 26.90 0.269 0.987 -0.0685 0.0685
7 1 25.10 0.251 0.921 -0.0520 0.0520
8 1 24.00 0.240 0.880
9 1 22.90 0.229 0.840
10 1 21.90 0.219 0.803 -0.0391 0.0391
11 1 20.80 0.208 0.763 -0.0379 0.0379
12 1 19.90 0.199 0.730 -0.0342 0.0342
13 1 19.10 0.191 0.700
14 1 19.00 0.190 0.697 -0.0220 0.0220
15 1 17.90 0.179 0.656
16 1 17.50 0.175 0.642
17 1 16.90 0.169 0.620 -0.0189 0.0189
18 1 16.50 0.165 0.605 -0.0177 0.0177
19 1 16.00 0.160 0.587
20 1 15.90 0.159 0.583
22 2 14.80 0.148 0.543
24 2 14.20 0.142 0.521 -0.0245 0.0245
26 2 13.40 0.134 0.491 -0.0122 0.0122
28 2 12.90 0.129 0.473
30 2 12.30 0.123 0.451
35 5 11.90 0.119 0.436
40 5 10.30 0.103 0.378 -0.0084 0.0084
45 5 9.90 0.099 0.363
50 5 9.20 0.092 0.337
55 5 8.80 0.088 0.323 -0.0049 0.0049
60 5 8.00 0.080 0.293 -0.0033 0.0033
65 5 7.90 0.079 0.290
70 5 7.40 0.074 0.271 -0.0032 0.0032
75 5 7.20 0.072 0.264
80 5 7.10 0.071 0.260
85 5 6.90 0.069 0.253
90 5 6.70 0.067 0.246 -0.0031 0.0031
95 5 6.20 0.062 0.227
100 5 6.10 0.061 0.224

Sample of calculation (Table 6 only):

Size of the tank = 2.445 m x 1.50 m
At time 2 sec: Volume, V (m3) = 0.35 x 2.445 x 1.50 = 1.284 m 3
Discharge, Qi =
1
[5(∀ t + ∆t − ∀ t − ∆t ) − (∀ t + 2 ∆t − ∀ t − 2 ∆t )]
6 ∆t
Discharge, Q2 =
1
[5(1.181 − 1.438) − (1.166 − 1.606)] = −0.1406 m 3 / s = 0.1406 m 3 / s
6 x1
(Negative sign indicates that the discharge is reducing with the decrease of head)

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 8

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

st
Discharge vs Head Plot (1 experiment) for Variable Head Method

0.100
1

2.6023
y = 1.6986x
2
R = 0.9834
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

0.010

0.001
0.01 0.10 1.00
Head, H (m)

Figure 1: Relationship between discharge and head on arithmetic scale (First test)

nd
Discharge vs Head Plot (2 experiment) for Variable Head Method

1.000
1

2.5893
y = 1.7456x
2
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

0.100 R = 0.986

0.010

0.001
0.01 0.10 1.00
Head, H (m)

Figure 2: Relationship between discharge and head on arithmetic scale (Second test)

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 9

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

rd
Discharge vs Head Plot (3 experiment) for Variable Head Method

1.000
1

2.5886
y = 1.8346x
2
R = 0.9865
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

0.100

0.010

0.001
0.01 0.10 1.00
Head, H (m)

Figure 3: Relationship between discharge and head on arithmetic scale (Third test)

th
Discharge vs Head Plot (4 experiment) for Variable Head M ethod

1.000
1

2.3531
y = 1.5043x
2
R = 0.9744
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

0.100

0.010

0.001
0.01 0.10 1.00
Head, H (m)

Figure 4: Relationship between discharge and head on arithmetic scale (Fourth test)

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 10

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Sample Calculation (4th experiment):

The head discharge relationship is given by Q = KH n (by theory)

Equation of the line: y = 1.5043 x 2.3531 (from graph)
So, by comparing two equations, K = 1.5043 and n = 2.3531

5.2 Constant Head Method

Table 7: Data analysis for constant head technique

No. Head, H (cm) Head, H (m) Discharge, Q (m3/h) Discharge, Q (m3/s)
1 18.50 0.185 97.78 0.02716
2 18.00 0.180 77.855 0.02163
3 17.50 0.175 70.96 0.01971
4 16.50 0.165 64.00 0.01778
5 16.00 0.160 59.98 0.01666
6 14.50 0.145 48.05 0.01335
7 15.00 0.150 49.7 0.01381
8 13.00 0.130 34.59 0.00961
9 11.50 0.115 19.95 0.00554
10 7.00 0.070 6.73 0.00187
11 8.00 0.080 13.53 0.00376

Sample Calculation:

The head discharge relationship is given by Q = KH n (by theory)

Equation of the line: y = 1.632 x 2.5089 (from graph)
So, by comparing two equations, K = 1.632 and n = 2.5089

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 11

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Discharge vs Head Plot (Constant Head Method)

0.100

y = 1.632x2.5089
1

R2 = 0.9753
Discharge, Q (m3/s)

0.010

0.001
0.01 0.10 1.00
Head, H (m)

Figure 5: Calibration Graph for Constant Head Method

5.3 Results

Table 8: The value of weir constant (K and n) from plotting data

Falling Head Method Constant Head Method
Test no.
K n K n
st
1 1.6986 2.6023
nd
2 1.7456 2.5893
rd
3 1.8346 2.5886 1.632 2.5089
th
4 1.5043 2.3531
Average 1.6958 2.5333

6 Discussions and Conclusions

6.1 Discussions

A weir is an obstruction in an open channel over which flow occurs. Although a dam spillway
is an example of a weir, most weirs are intended specifically for flow measurement. The
weir is placed in a channel so that fluid backs up behind it and then falls through a notch cut
into the weir, normally causing a waterfall effect over the crest of the weir. There are many
kinds of weirs. In this experiment, the triangular weir has been used. The bottom of the notch
is called the crest of the weir, and the crest height is measured from the bottom of the

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 12

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

channel to the crest. By simply knowing the dimensions of the notch of the weir, as well as
the height of water above the crest (head of water, H), one can calculate the amount of flow
over the weir, by using the theoretical equations for discharge over different type weirs.

Theoretical equation:

From the general equation of head discharge relationship of weir, Q = KH n

This test is V-notch (θ = 900) weir. So, theoretical discharge equation considered loss is:
θ
5
8
Q = Cd 2 g tan( ) H 2 , n = 5/2 = 2.50
15 2
From V-notch (θ = 900) weir, Lenz (Lecture note, Hydraulic) show that :
0.70 H gH ρgH 2
C d = 0.56 + Where R = and W =
R 0.165W 0.170 ν σ
ν = Viscosity, σ = Surface tension (Cd is vary by H in above equation)

We know that C d ≈ 0.585 (Henderson, F.M. , 1966)

8 8
K = Cd 2 g tan(45°) = 0.585 x 2 x9.81x tan(45°) = 1.382 ; So, K = 1.382
15 15
Table 9: Comparison of K and n values
Experimental
Constant Theoretical
Falling head Constant head
n 2.50 2.5333 2.5089
K 1.382 1.6958 1.632
From the Henderson concept so the errors are:
• Falling head error
2.50 − 2.5333
n value : x100 = 1.332%
2.50
1.382 − 1.6958
K value: x100 = 22.706%
1.382
• Constant head error
2.50 − 2.5089
n value : x100 = 0.356%
2.50
1.382 − 1.632
K value: x100 = 18.089%
1.382
From the result, it is observed that the experimental values are different from the theoretical
value. There is a little variation of n for both cases but more variation is seen for K in both
cases.

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 13

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

The uncertainties associated with the resulting weir calibration equation may be the
fluctuation of water level in the weir and the accuracy of reading while testing, as there are
many possibilities of error during experiments. Some of them are given below:

Possible sources of errors for falling head method due to

• Leakage of weir tank is observed and valve system is not prefect.
• Reading the analog manometer from video and pulling out the wooden cover.

Possible sources of errors for constant head method

• The operation system: weir tank, EFM (Electromagnetic flow meter) and main Lab valve
are not installed in the same place. So, it is difficult to measure all the data at the same
time.
• It is observed that the flows always fluctuate in EFM. So, error may arise during taking
reading. Moreover, it takes so much time to be steady flow. During taking the reading,
flow may not be steady which is needed in this method.
• Equipment error: When the head is about 6 cm, the EFM shows zero flow (we see flow
from water supply pipe but EFM can not read flow rate).

Figure 6: Error sources in the experiment

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 14

Lab Exercise: 1 Calibration of Weir

Figure 7: Weir flow (actual)

In data analysis, some value of discharge has been ignored (Table 4 to 6) because those
values are less than the next time step discharge values calculated using Taylor series
equation. But practically, it doesn’t happen. When the head decreases, the discharge should
be decreased continuously in sequential manner as discharge is directly related to head of
water. By using this concept, those discharge values are neglected.

6.2 Conclusions

In the field, the calibration of weir is essential to measure the flow rate in the open channel,
which is different from the theoretical value as theoretical formulation uses some
assumption. For the falling head technique the value of K is 1.6958 and n = 2.5333 and for
constant head technique the value of K = 1.632 and n = 2.5089. for both cases, the variation
for n is very less and K is little bit higher than the theoretical value.

Based on the result, it can be finally concluded that the calibration equation developed for
both cases in this experiment is good enough.

References

1. Laboratory Manual (AIT) and Handout, Supplied by Laboratory supervisor.

2. Likhi, S.K.1987. Hydraulics Laboratory Manual, Tata Mc Graw-Hill Publishing Company
Ltd., New Delhi.
3. F.M. Henderson. (1966), Open Channel Flow, Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc., New York.
4. R. H. French (1986), Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York, U.S.A
5. Chow, V.T. (1992), Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York, U.S.A.
6. Robert L. Street, Gary Z. Watters, John K. Vennard, Elementary Fluid Mechanics (1996,
7th edition), P.668

Prepared by: Sajal Kumar Adhikary (105599) / Group No: 6 15