You are on page 1of 10

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

Effective parameters for calculating discharge coefcient of sluice gates


H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi n
Irrigation and Reclamation Department, University of Tehran Karaj, P.O. Box 31587-4111, Alborz, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present work demonstrates the characteristics of ow from sluice gates under free and submerged
Received 16 October 2012 ow conditions using Energy and Momentum Equations (EMEs). The experimental data was used from
Received in revised form the research works reported by different investigators to calibrate the proposed equations. An equation
28 May 2013
for estimation energy loss factor of sluice gate at free ow was presented and effect of this parameter on
Accepted 2 June 2013
Available online 12 June 2013
increasing discharge coefcient's accuracy was demonstrated. It was derived a theoretical equation for
variations of sluice gate's discharge coefcient with relative opening and relative tailwater depth. Effects
Keywords: of energy loss factor on discharge coefcient and distinguishing limit were investigated. In this research
Sluice gate the concepts of submergence limit of the gate and the submergence limit of hydraulic jump will be
Discharge coefcient
distinguished. By determining effective pressure on the gate and using EMEs, equations for variations
Contraction coefcient
of sluice gate's contraction coefcient with relative opening and relative submergence were presented.
Energy loss factor
Distinguishing limit The result shows that at free ow condition, a minimum contraction coefcient obtained under a certain
Stage-discharge relationship value of relative gate opening. At submerged ow condition, contraction coefcient would be either
increased or decreased depending on the level of ow submergence. This paper carefully considered
stage-discharge relationships for estimation gate discharge under free and submerged ow conditions.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction coefcient as zero when the free ow depth at upstream of gate


is equal or less than gate opening, presented equations for
Sluice gates are devices which commonly were used for ow determination of discharge coefcient. Ferro [4] masterminded a
control in irrigation canals. Furthermore, they could be used as sample relation yclept to stage-discharge for estimation sluice gate
simple and inexpensive structures for ow measurement with discharge at free ow condition. This relation was extended by
known accuracy. For this goal, study on the sluice gate as a Ansar [5] and Ferro [6] for submerged ow condition. Lin et al. [7]
measuring structure should be needed. Although this structure investigated effect of gate lip's shape on contraction coefcient.
has simple design and have been used for many years ago, there They have reported that the contraction coefcient increases in
are some aspects about ow under sluice gates, for example, round lip. Belaud et al. [8] used the energy-momentum equili-
determination of discharge passed from the sluice gate as a brium and reported a theoretical framework to estimate the
classical problem in hydraulic engineering, investigation on con- contraction coefcient under free and submerged ow conditions.
traction coefcient, energy loss factor and effects of these para- Lozano et al. [9] considered some sluice gates in irrigation canals
meters on discharge coefcient, distinguishing limit. More operating under submerged ow conditions and found that the
investigations on this structure are specialized at free ow condi- inuences of contraction coefcient and energy loss on discharge
tion and minor studies were done at submerged ow which occurs coefcient are considerable at high submergence level. Habibza-
commonly in irrigation networks. Henry [1] performed an exten- deh et al. [10] investigated role of sluice gate's energy loss on
sive experimental work for determination of sluice gate's dis- discharge coefcient. They have reported that attention to sluice
charge coefcient under free and submerged ow conditions. gate's energy loss is valid for accurate estimation of discharge.
He has reported an individual curve for this which used to date, Cassan and Belaud [11] studied the ow at upstream and down-
specially for submerged ow conditions. Rajaratnam & Subrama- stream of sluice gates and took benet from a laboratory
nya [2] presented new denitions of sluice gate's discharge layout and two dimensional numerical simulation of RNG k-
coefcient at free and submerged ow conditions. Swamee [3] (Re-Normalization Group) and RSM (Reynolds Stress Model)
digitized Henry's [1] curve and with assuming discharge turbulence models. It is found that the contraction coefcient
was increased with high submergence ratio at large openings of
the gate. Bijankhan et al. [12] reported that Ferro's [4] relation at
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +98 2632241119. free ow condition demonstrates an acceptable precision; how-
E-mail address: jfarhoudi@ut.ac.ir (J. Farhoudi). ever under submerged condition particularly, at low submergence

0955-5986/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.owmeasinst.2013.06.001
H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105 97

Nomenclature F pt forces due to hydrostatic pressure at tailwater section


pz pressure at upstream face of the gate and any depth
a relative gate opening (a w=y0 ) (z) from the bed
b gate width q discharge per unit width of the gate
af ; bf parameters in stage-discharge relation at free ow s relative submergence (s y3 =y0 )
condition s relative tailwater depth (s yt =y0 )
as ; bs parameters in stage-discharge relation at submerged sd tailwater depth into gate opening (sd yt =w)
ow condition w gate opening
Cc contraction coefcient y0 upstream ow depth
Cd discharge coefcient y1 thickness of the vena contraction
C df discharge coefcient at free ow condition y3 downstream depth (immediately downstream of the
C ds discharge coefcient at submerged ow condition gate)
C dexp experimental discharge coefcient yt tailwater depth
g acceleration due to gravity yc critical depth
hp z effective energy head at upstream face of the gate and yt tailwater depth at the threshold state of hydraulic
any depth (z) from the bed jump
hpgmax maximum effective energy head at upstream face of yt tailwater depth at the threshold state of sluice gate
the gate with free ow X relative maximum pressure head behind of sluice gate
I integration of pressure head behind at upstream face dimensionless function of pressure distribution
of the gate with free ow behind the gate in free ow
I integration of pressure head behind at upstream face dimensionless function of pressure distribution
of the gate with submerged ow behind the gate in submerged ow
k factor of pressure force at upstream face of the gate at specify weight
submerged ow pz deviation from hydrostatic pressure at contracted
F p1 forces due to hydrostatic pressure at upstream section region at any depth (z) from the bed
F p2 forces due to hydrostatic pressure at downstream sluice gate's energy loss factor
section correction factor for pressure distribution in vena
F g1 forces acting on upstream face of the gate contraction
F g1 forces acting on downstream face of the gate 1 for submerged ow (0 for free ow)
Fc force due to deviation from hydrostatic pressure mass density
distribution

Table 1
Summary of reported relationships for discharge coefcient of sluice gates.

Researcher Suggested relationship Researcher Suggested relationship

Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2] C d p


0:611 Ferro [4] Cd w=2
p

aw=4
10:6112 w=y0 2 2
 0:075 q
Larsen and Mishra [13] Garbrecht [15] C d 0:64680:1641 yw
C d 0:489 yw 0
0
 0:072 q
Swamee [3] 0 w
Noutsopoulos and Fanariotis [16] C d 0:620:15 yw
C d 0:611 y y15w 0
 
0

Alhamid [14]  0:0649 Nago [17]


C d 0:6113 y y15w 0 w C d 0:6exp 0:3 yw
0 0

which needs a correction factor to be applied. They have improved conditions. It is shown that a considerable increase in the accuracy
the accuracy of stage-discharge relation by using Incomplete Self- of ow discharge will be occurred when the parameters of this
Similarity and denition of Discharge Reduction Factor (DRF). Table 1 relation were dened as functions of relative gate opening and
summarizes all relationships reported by several researchers to relative tailwater depth.
estimate discharge coefcient of sluice gates under free and sub-
merged ow conditions where; wgate opening, y0 upstream ow
depth, ; coefcients, and a w=y0 . 2. Energy loss factor of sluice gate at free ow condition
The research is primarily based on using the energy equation at
upstream and downstream of the gate to estimate energy loss Referring to Fig. 1, the energy equation before and after the gate
coefcient at free ow condition which would be applied to could be expressed as:
determine the discharge coefcient. Then by using both EMEs, q2 q2 q2
the discharge coefcient of the gate is estimated under submerged y0 2
y3 2
1
2gy0 2gy1 2gy21
ow condition. The effect of energy loss was introduced in the
equations to dene the variation of energy loss with tailwater in which y0 , y1 and y3 are ow depths as shown in Fig. 1. g is the
condition. Using EMEs before and after the gate together with acceleration due to gravity and q is the ow discharge per unit
pressure distribution behind the gate, some equations were width of the rectangular channel. The energy head loss of the
derived to estimate the contraction coefcient showing its sluice gate in Eq. (1) is dened as q2 =2gy21 which is the energy
dependency on gate opening and relative submergence. Ferro's loss factor. By dening a w=y0 (relative opening), s y3 =y0
[4,6] method was carefully considered under free and submerged (relative submergence), C c y1 =w (contraction coefcient),
98 H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

p
C d q=w 2gy0 (discharge coefcient) and introducing these
parameters in Eq. (1), we could express as:

C c 2
1 C d 2 a2 s1 2
C d 2

Eq. (2) presented energy loss factor for submerged ow condi-


tion. At free ow condition, s C c a. Consequently, the energy loss
factor for free ow condition could be expressed as:

S Cc a C c 2
- 1 C d 2 a2 C c a1 3
C d 2
Eq. (3) shows energy loss factor at free ow condition depends on
relative gate opening, contraction coefcient and discharge coef-
Fig. 3. Estimation of sluice gate's energy loss factor for free ow condition.
cient. Henderson [18] proposed a constant value of 0.61 for
contraction coefcient at free ow condition. Also, Woycicki [19]
proposed following relation for variation of contraction coefcient
with relative gate opening at free ow from his experimental
work:
C c 0:617 0:04a 4

Using experimental data from Henry's [1] curve (see Fig. 2) for
discharge coefcient at free ow condition and assumption a
constant value for contraction coefcient or application of
Eq. (4), the variation of energy loss factor with relative gate
opening is depicted in Fig. 3. Although, the deviation of contrac-
tion coefcient determined from Eq. (4) is negligible comparing
with Henderson's [18] suggestion, the energy loss coefcient will
considerably change with contraction coefcient. Moreover, there
would be a certain relative opening which the energy loss
coefcient pertains its maximum value. Fig. 3 veries Habibzadeh Fig. 4. Comparison of C d values by several authors based on experimental data
et al.'s [10] suggestion of 0.062 as an average value of energy loss from Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2].
factor at free ow condition by assumption of C c 0:61. Using the

values recommended by Woycicki [19] and Henderson [18], one


could estimate energy loss coefcient from Fig. 3 as:

C c 0:61- 12:61620:0015a a2:2735 5

C c 0:617 0:04a- 3:32690:0232a a1:5239 6

As mentioned above the dependency of energy loss coefcient


on contraction coefcient, which results in a considerable change
in discharge measurement precision. Using Eq. (3) could demon-
strate a relationship for discharge coefcient related to contraction
coefcient, energy loss factor, and relative gate opening as:
s
1C c a
Fig. 1. Denition sketch for ow under sluice gates.
Cd Cc 7
1 C c a2

In Fig. 4, the Eq. (7) is compared with the result of several


researchers' works as mention in Table 2. It could be observed
from Fig. 4 that the recommended equation by Rajaratnam and
Subramanya [2] which was conducted 45.72 cm width, is over-
estimating the discharge coefcient compared with others.
In Table 2 the accuracy of Eq. (7) is compared with other researchers
work, which shows an acceptable precision.
Eq. (7) is also compared with Sawari [20] experimental data
which was taken in a channel of 10 cm widths. Careful considera-
tion of Figs. 4 and 5 claries the Eq. (7) covers all C d values under
different length scales (see Tables 2 and 3).
In Fig. 6, the discharge coefcient is plotted against relative
opening for varying values under free ow condition and
compared with proposed equations by other researchers. It is
evident from Fig. 6 that the effect of energy loss on discharge
coefcient is reected in all reported relationships by the
Fig. 2. Henry's [1] curve for determination sluice gate's discharge coefcient. researchers. It is also understood that the variation of C d falls in
H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105 99

Table 2
Comparison of C d values by several authors based on experimental data from Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2].

Parameters Rajaratnam and Swamee Alhamid Garbrecht Nago Noutsopoulos and Eq. (7) Eq. (7)Cc
Subramanya [2] [3] [14] [15] [17] Fanariotis [16] Cc 0.61 (Eq. (4))

R2a 0.843 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.960 0.953 0.932 0.962


MAEb 0.073 0.013 0.006 0.0166 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.006
Max relative Error% 30.553 0.166 0.145 4.756 2.528 1.519 2.167 1.91
Min relative error% 2.113 5.011 3.625 0.369 1.363 3.145 4.073 1.702
Percentage of data points with 15.789 63.158 84.211 26.316 94.737 89.474 89.474 100
7 2.5% errors
Percentage of data points with 15.789 94.737 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 5% errors

where
xi calculated data, x^ i observed data and x mean value of observations.
n x x^ 2
a
R2 1 in 1 xi xi 2
i 1 i
b
MAE 1n ni jxi x^ i j

Fig. 5. Comparison of C d values by several authors based on experimental data


Fig. 6. Inuences of energy loss on discharge coefcient of sluice gate.
from Sawari [20].

a domain where is ranging from 0 to 0.1. It is noteworthy to in which is approximated to 0.08 at a distance; x 1:15wfrom
mention that this limits are 0.050.15 according to Swamee [3] the gate.
whereas, the proposed equation suggests values of 0.050.1. Introducing the above relationships in Eq. (9) and assuming
0, results in:

3. General equation for discharge coefcient at submerged a w=y0 ; s y3 =y0 ; s yt =y0 s2 C d 2 a s2 C 2 a2


- 2 2 d 11
ow condition 2 Cc 2 s

Applying the energy equation before and after the gate where
Eliminating the relative submergence (s) from Eqs. (8) and
the energy loss was overlooked, it results in:
(11), gives a theoretical equation to determine the discharge
 2
Cd coefcient at submerged ow condition as:
1 C d 2 a2 s 8 v
Cc u r
 2   
u
u2a2 2 2 4a2 4a 2a2 2 2 4as 4a
2
4 s2 1 a4 1 4 2a 2
2

Considering the ow distance between immediate downstream u C c s Cc C c Cc C c C c


Cd t 2
section of the gate and where the tailwater is fully developed, the 2a4 C24 4a C 2
c c

momentum equation could be expressed as (see Fig. 7): 12


F x qV x -F p2 F c qV 2 F pt qV t 9
Using sd yt =w s=a as dened in Henry's [1] curve at submerged
ow condition, we achieve:
y3 y23 q q 2
F p2 y ; qV 2 q ; v
u r
2 3 2 g y1 gy1 u  2   
u2a2 2 2 4a 4a 2a2 2 2 4a
2
sd C c 4 a2 s2d 1 a4 1 4 2a 2
4a
u
yt y2 q q2 Cd t
C c sd Cc C c C c C c
F pt yt t ; qV t q 2a4 2 4 4a 2
2

2 2 g yt gyt C c C c

13
Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2] suggested a relationship to
determine the deviation from hydrostatic pressure at contracted
region. By integration of this deviation was obtained excess Fig. 8 compares the theoretical discharge coefcient deter-
pressure force at vena contracta: mined by Eq. (13) where C c 0:61, with Henry's [1] experimental
  Z z y1 curves which shows an acceptable t. Fig. 9 is a plot of the relative
z q2
pz 1 2 ; 0 z y1 -F c pz dz errors between theoretical and experimental results which indi-
y1 2y1 z0
Z z y   cates that Eq. (13) is overestimating the discharge coefcient,
q2 1 z q2 which would be high in low discharges. The results from Fig. 9
1 dz 10
2gy21 z 0 y1 4gy1 dictate that the energy loss must be considered in Eq. (13).
100 H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

Table 3
Comparison of C d values by several authors based on experimental data from Sawari [20].

Parameters Rajaratnam and Nago [17] Swamee [3] Larsen and Mishra [13] Ferro [4] Garbrecht [15] Eq. (7) Eq. (7)Cc
Subramanya [2] Cc 0.61 (Eq. (4))

R2 0.823 0.829 0.828 0.723 0.723 0.827 0.773 0.848


MAE 0.074 0.016 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.021 0.014 0.012
Max relative error% 43.052 9.341 3.534 9.287 7.543 11.418 7.587 5.960
Min relative error% 2.482 4.351 8.292 6.995 8.262 3.357 6.993 7.804
Percentage of data points with 7 2.5% errors 1.980 48.515 53.465 50.495 45.544 32.673 55.446 63.367
Percentage of data points with 75% errors 18.812 83.168 90.099 88.119 91.089 70.297 94.059 90.099

Fig. 10. Sample variation of MAE versus .

Fig. 7. Control volume at downstream of the gate.

Fig. 11. Variations of yt =w versus .

Table 4
Evaluation of proposed equation for estimation the discharge coefcient in
Fig. 8. Comparison between discharge coefcient between Eq. (13) and Henry's submerged ow condition.
[1] curve.
Parameters Eq. (13) Eq. (14) Eq. (14)
0 (Fig. 11) 0.08

Max relative error% 24.648 9.920 16.260


Min relative error% 22.125 7.2816 13.824
Percentage of data points with 7.936 71.304 61.475
7 2.5% errors

Therefore Eq. (13) could be modied as:


v
r

u
u 2  2  2

u2a2 212 4a 2 21 4a 4a 4 1 2a 1
2
4a
2a 4 a 2 s 1 a
u C c sd Cc C c 2 sd Cc d C c 4
C c 2
Cd t
2
2a4 21 4aC1
2

C 4 c 2c

14

To use the Eq. (14) one has to evaluate the energy loss factor ()
which could be tackled as the followings:

a) The rst approach could be based on the variations of energy loss


Fig. 9. Evaluation of relative error from different methods. factor () with relative tailwater depths (yt =w). For a certain value
H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105 101

of yt =w and using experimental data retrieved from Henry's [1] would be decreased, as shown in Fig. 9 and Table 4. If Eq. (14) is
curve, an optimum value of is determined so that the Mean used by application the proposed values of from Fig. 11 and
Absolute Error (MAE 1=nni 1 jC dexp C d j) to be minimum C c 0:61, the relative errors are between 75% in most cases
(where C dexp is the experimental discharge coefcient and C d is (71% with relative errors under 72.5% and 91% under 7 5%).
discharge coefcient determined by Eq. (14)). Fig. 10 shows the Consequently, Eq. (14) with proposed values of can be used
variation of MAE with for yt =w 5. In Fig. 11 the energy loss for estimation the discharge coefcient at submerged ow
factor under submerged ow condition is depicted against differ- condition with acceptable accuracy, notwithstanding its com-
ent C c values which shows that, the energy loss factor tends to plexity in form.
increase considerably with contraction coefcient.
b) The second approach is presentation an average value for Another investigation for evaluation of Eq. (14) was conducted
energy loss factor, dependent on relative tailwater depth. Using based on the experimental data extracted from Rajaratnam and
all experimental data from Henry's [1] curve and assumption a Subramanya [2] as well as from Sepulveda [21] which was taken
constant value of 0.61 for C c , the average value of energy loss from some sluice gates with 43.4 and 44 cm widths. Fig. 12 shows
factor was obtained 0.08 which veries the value of 0.088 that Eq. (14) closely relates the discharge coefcients to experi-
reported by Habibzadeh et al. [10]. Using proposed values for mental values. It is noteworthy to mention that the accuracy
energy loss factor, the relative errors of discharge coefcient would be decreased as yt =w taking values greater than 8. This
indicates that the proposed equation would be reliable only for
2yt =w8.
One should notice that Eq. (14) is concluded for a certain range
of gate width and therefore, cautions has to be taken using
different gate scales. It means that the scale effects must be
considered in developing the equations to estimate the discharge
coefcient at free and submerged ow conditions.

4. Highlighting the difference between the submergence


limits of sluice gates and hydraulic jump

Identifying the free or submerged ow conditions and the


threshold between two regimes are vital for accurate ow mea-
surement through a gate (Bijankhan et al. [12]). It should be noted
Fig. 12. Evaluation of different methods for estimation discharge coefcient
that no difference between the threshold states for gate and
(Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2] and Sepulveda [21]). hydraulic jump was mentioned in some texts. Therefore it would
be useful to differentiate between the threshold states for hydrau-
lic jump and gate. In the case of hydraulic jump, the tailwater
depth yt is assumed to be equal with sequent depths as dened
by Belanger [22] formula (see Fig. 13). To study the hydraulic jump
downstream of the sluice gate, the effect of energy loss coefcient
at submergence limit has to be introduced in the Belanger [22]
formula. Therefore the modied Belanger [22] formula could be
written as:
s !
yt Cca 161=C c a1
1 1 15
y0 2 1 C c 2 a2

Estimation of submergence limit could be achieved either by


assuming a constant value for contraction coefcient or using
Eq. (4). In Fig. 14 the values of submergence limits with relative
Fig. 13. Schematic sketch of threshold states for hydraulic jump and sluice gate. openings a w=H 0 are plotted where energy loss coefcient is

Fig. 14. Comparison between threshold states for hydraulic jump and sluice gate.
102 H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

varied. This diagram demonstrates the importance of energy loss in which 1 for submerged ow, 0at free ow and
Rz y
coefcient on submergence limit. In other words, ignoring the I z w0 pz=dy is the total pressure head behind at upstream
effect of energy loss on submergence limit would resume the face of the gate with submerged ow. Substituting the above
submerged ow to free ow condition which is obviously relationships in Eq. (19) results in:
erroneous.
y20 q2 y2 4q2
On the other hands, it can be observed from Fig. 13 that the y w2 3 I 20
2 2 3 gy0 2 4gy1
threshold state of gate takes place when the water level reaches to
the lip of the gate. This shows that the submergence of the gate Elimination of ow intensity (q) from Eqs. (1) and (20) and
needs higher tailwater level yt than needed for threshold assuming 0, reveals a theoretical equation to determine the
condition of the hydraulic jump (yt ). Swamee [3] proposed the contraction coefcient related to the relative gate opening, relative
following relations for estimation discharge coefcient at free (C df ) submergence and pressure distribution behind the gate:
and submerged (C ds ) ow conditions by digitizing Henry's [1]
r 2
4 4
  
s12 4 32 a2 2a2 s sa3 a2 a2 12 a2 as
4 2
curve: 2 a1s 2 a
Cc  
 0:072 3a2 4a2 s 2sa3 a4 2a2
1a
C df 0:611 16 21
1 15a
8 91
in which
 0:072 "  0:72 #0:7
< =
C ds 0:611
1a
1s0:7 0:32 0:81s
s
1 1s0:7
I
1 15a : a ; 22
y20
17 At the free ow condition one could dene; s C c a and 0.
According to Fig. 2, in the threshold state of sluice gate C df C ds . Therefore, Eq. (21) would be alerted as:
Using Eqs. (16) and (17) results in:
a3 C c 3 3a2 C c 2 2 3 aC c 21 0 23
yt
1:13033a0:418605 18 in which I=y20 and I is the total pressure head at upstream face
y0
of the gate. The value of could be determined by using Eqs.
Fig. 14 shows that one has to distinguish the submergence limits (7) and (20) as ( 0; y3 y1 ; 0; I I):
between the hydraulic jump (Eq. 15) and sluice gate (Eq. 18). This
1a2 C c 2 C d 2 a=C c 4C c a 4
shows that there would be some ow conditions at which the 24
2
hydraulic jump becomes submerged whereas the gate is still
under free ow condition. where C c is the contraction coefcient which would be dened
from Eq. (7) as ( 0):
q
5. Contraction coefcient of the sluice gate at free and aC d 2 C d 4 C d a2
Cc 25
submerged ow conditions 2
Thus is known if the discharge coefcient and relative
At submerged ow condition, the forces inuencing control opening are known. Roth and Hager [23] from their measurements
volume, as shown in Fig. 15, are: suggested the following equation to estimate the effective energy
head at upstream face of the gate and any depth (z) from the bed:
 Forces due to hydrostatic pressure are Fp1 and Fp2, respectively.   r"    #
 Forces acting on the upstream and downstream faces of the hp z 1:538y0 w 10:3tanh 2:3
w zw 1=7

zw 8=7
gate are Fg1 and Fg2, respectively. y0 y0 w y0 w
 Force due to the deviation from hydrostatic pressure distribu- 26
tion is F c .
According to their recommendation, the maximum effective
energy head at upstream face of the gate with free ow could be
On the other hand, the momentum equation between
approximated by:
upstream and downstream of the gate could be expressed as:   r
w
F x qV x -F p1 F g2 qV 1 F p2 F g1 F c qV 2 19 hpgmax y0 w 10:3tanh 2:3 27
y0
y20 y 
3 w q2
F p1 2 ; F g2 2 y3 w 2 y3 w2 ; qV 1 gy0
y23 q2 q2
F p2 2 ; F g1 I; F c 4gy1 ; qV 2 gy1

Fig. 15. Effective forces on the control volume. Fig. 16. Variation of versus a in free ow condition.
H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105 103

The integration of Eq. (27) will give the total effective pressure
head at upstream face of the gate with free ow as:
I=y20 p
- 0:628021a2 10:3tanh2:3 a 28
In Fig. 16 the variations of with relative gate opening is depicted
using Eq. (24) in which the data or retrieved from Rajaratnam and
Subramanya [2]. This gure could be mathematically expressed as:
0:56020:10815e2:1795a 29
Fig. 16 shows a good agreement between the corrent work with
ager .Since there is not enough information about pressure
distribution at upstream face of the gate with submerged ow,
one could approximate its value as a product of free ow (I kI). Fig. 18. Variation of calculated contraction coefcient with relative opening of the
In this condition, Eq. (20) for determination of I=y20 results in: gate under free ow condition.
q
1 a2 4
sa C d a2 C d a 1s C d a2 30
2 2
Using Eqs. (28) and (30), k =is dened as:
q
1 a2 =2sa C d a2 4=2C d a 1s C d a2
k p 31
0:628021a2 10:3tanh2:3 a
Dening an auxiliary parameter X as:
p
hpgmax hpgmax =y0 1a10:3tanh2:3 a
X
y3 y3 =y0 s
and using the recommendation of Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2]
and Cassan and Belaud [11], the variation of k with X could
determined from (see Fig. 17):
1:97
k 3:072:12e0:0174X 32
It would be observed from Fig. 17 and Eq. (32) that when X-1, the
value of k is also approaching to unity which means the pressure
distribution at submerged condition falls to its corresponding free
ow condition. Variation of contraction coefcient with relative
opening of the gate at free ow condition and threshold state is
shown in Fig. 18. It is easily could be observed that the contraction Fig. 19. Variation of calculated contraction coefcient with relative gate opening
coefcient descending to a minimum value at w=y0 0:6 and then and relative submergence under submerged ow condition (a) s 0:20:5 and
increases thereafter which is in accordance with Belaud et al. [8]. (b) s 0:50:9

However, the lowest value of contraction coefcient in their work


is occurred at w=y0 0:4 instead of w=y0 0:6. Fig. 18 shows that the
This is dominant factor at low submergence level. On the other
contraction coefcient pertains a lesser value while a repelled
hand, as the ow becomes more submerged, the difference
jump is occurred. It is also seen that the contraction coefcient
between water levels upstream and downstream of the gate
would be higher at threshold state of the gate compared with free
decreases and the exit velocity under the gate would also decrease
hydraulic jump. Fig. 19 shows variations of contraction coefcient
which results in some increase at the thickness of vena contracta
with relative opening and relative submergence at submerged
and contraction coefcient which would be more effective at
ow condition. It is shown that the contraction coefcient can be
submergence level.
increased or decreased with relative submergence. At low sub-
The contraction coefcient can be used for estimation dis-
mergence level (s 0:2 to s 0:5), the contraction coefcient
charge coefcient at free and submerged ow.
decreases with relative submergence and increases for high
s
submergence level (s 0:5 to s 0:9). As the ow becomes 1s
submerged, the force due to water weight over the contracted Cd Cc 33
1C 2c a2
section is increased and the thickness of vena contracta decreases.
The accuracy of Eq. (33) was assessed using the data retrieved
from Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2] which is shown in Fig. 20.
The maximum relative errors in estimating the discharge coef-
cient would be 2% and 4% at free and submerged ow conditions,
respectively.

6. Estimating the ow through sluice gate using stage-


discharge relationship

To estimate the discharge from the gate by combination of Eqs.


(14) and (33) gives an acceptable accuracy in ow calculation.
However, it could be realized that the procedure would be some-
Fig. 17. Variation of k values with X. how complex in application. Therefore, it would be more desirable
104 H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

relationships were concluded to estimate af and bf as a function


of w=b:
(  
af 0:81030:0829 wb
  35
bf 0:3569 0:0904 wb

The relative errors of Eq. (35) in comparison with Ferro [4] and
Bijankhan et al. [12] were calculated and depicted in Fig. 21(a).
It can be seen that Ferro's [4] method overestimates the discharges
than the experimental values (%RE qexp q=qexp 100), but
Bijankhan's [12] proposed values would demonstrate an accepta-
Fig. 20. Evaluation of proposed equations for estimation discharge coefcients ble accuracy. It is recommended some more works with wide
in free and submerged ow conditions (Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2]). range of gate width to be conducted for more certainty of
equations in form (35).
Ferro [6] also suggested the following stage-discharge relation-
ship for submerged ow condition:
yc y y bs
as 0 t 36
w w
Bearing in mind the same route was used in determining Eq. (35),
the following equations were justied for as and bs as a function of
yt =b:
(  
as 1:063  0:082 ybt
  37
bs 0:2785 0:0393 ybt

The relative errors of Eq. (37) in comparison with over mentioned


researchers works were calculated and plotted in Fig. 21(b) which
shows both Eq. (37) and Bijankhan's [12] method could be used in
calibration of sluice gates under submerged ow condition.

7. Conclusions

There would be a certain relative opening which the energy


loss coefcient pertains its maximum value. The energy loss
coefcient of sluice gate increases the accuracy of estimation
discharge coefcient. It was derived an equation for estimation
the discharge coefcient at submerged ow condition with accep-
Fig. 21. Evaluation of stage-discharge relations in (a) free ow condition and
(b) submerged ow conditions.
table accuracy basis on EMEs. There would be some ow condi-
tions at which the hydraulic jump becomes submerged whereas
the gate is still under free ow condition. At free ow, contraction
if a sample relationship, such as stage-discharge relationship, is coefcient tends to decrease with relative opening and reaches to
derived to give the required accuracy in ow determination. Ferro a minimum value and increases thereafter. At submerged ow
[4] proposed the following form of stage-discharge relationship to condition, contraction coefcient would be either increased or
estimate the ow through the gate at free ow condition as: decreased depending on the level of ow submergence. It was
considered that the parameters in stage-discharge relations as
yc y bf functions of w=b and yt =b at free and submerged ow conditions,
af 0 34 respectively.
w w

where ap and bf are variable parameters, and yc is the critical


f References
depth 3 q2 =g . From his experimental work in a channel of 40 cm
width, he suggested af 0:830, bf 0:378. Later, Bijankhan et al. [1] Henry R. Discussion to On submerged jets. Transactions of the American
[12] used some retrieved data reported by Rajaratnam and Sub- Society of Civil Engineers 1950;115:68794.
ramanya [2], Ferro [4] and Cassan and Belaud [11], and proposed [2] Rajaratnam N, Subramanya K. Flow equation for the sluice gate. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 1967;93(3):16786.
af 0:7839, bf 0:3845. Since, the width of the gates used by [3] Swamee P. Sluice gate discharge equations. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Ferro [4] was different from those utilized by Rajaratnam and Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(1):5660.
Subramanya [2], Ferro [4] and Cassan and Belaud [11], it seems [4] Ferro V. Simultaneous ow over and under a gate. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):1903.
that the values of af and bf are dependent on the width of gate. [5] Ansar M. Discussion of simultaneous ow over and under a gate by V. Ferro.
Therefore, it would be recommended that the scale effects should Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering; ASCE 2001;127(5):3256.
be considered in determining af and bf values to avoid any [6] Ferro V. Closure to simultaneous ow over and under a gate by V. Ferro.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(5):3268.
miscalculation of these parameters.
[7] Lin CH, Yen JF, Tsai CT. Inuence of sluice gate contraction coefcient on
In this research, the experimental data reported by Rajaratnam distinguishing condition. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
and Subramanya [2], Sawari [20] and Cassan and Belaud [11] at 2002;128(4):24952.
[8] Belaud G, Cassan L, Baume JP. Calculation of contraction coefcient under
free ow condition which were taken in several widths of gate
sluice gates and application to discharge measurement. Journal of Hydraulic
ranging from 10 to 45.72 cm were used and the following Engineering, ASCE 2009;135(12):108691.
H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105 105

[9] Lozano D, Mateos L, Merkley GP, Clemmens AJ. Field calibration of submerged [17] Nago H. Inuence of gate-shapes on discharge coefcients. Transactions of the
sluice gates in irrigation canals. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers 1978;10(2):1169.
ASCE 2009;135(6):76372. [18] Henderson FM. Open channel ow. New York: Macmillan; 1966.
[10] Habibzadeh A, Vatankhah AR, Rajaratnam N. Role of energy loss on discharge [19] Woycicki K. The hydraulic jump on its role on discharge of sluice gates.
characteristics of sluice gates. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 2011;137 Denver: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; 1935 Technical rep. no. 3-2.
(9):107984. [20] Sawari H. The impact of bafe distance on the bafe gate distributors [M.Sc.
[11] Cassan L, Belaud G. Experimental and numerical investigation of ow under degree thesis]. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran; 2010. [under supervisions of
sluice gates. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 2012;138(4):36773. Prof. Kouchakzadeh S.] (in Persian).
[12] Bijankhan M, Ferro V, Kouchakzadeh S. New stage-discharge relationships for [21] Sepulveda C. Instrumentation, model identication, and control of an experi-
free and submerged sluice gates. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation mental irrigation canal. Barcelona, Spain: Department of Hydraulic, Maritime
2012;28:506. and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia; 2007 [Ph.D.
[13] Larsen AP, Mishra PK. Constant discharge device for eld irrigation. Journal of
thesis].
Hydraulic Research 1990;28(4):4819.
[22] Blanger JB. Essai sur la solution numrique de quelques problmes relatifs au
[14] Alhamid AA. Coefcient of discharge for free ow sluice gates. Journal of King
mouvement permanent des eaux courantes. Paris, France: Carilian-Goeury;
Saud University, Engineering Science, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1999;11(1):3348.
1828.
[15] Garbrecht G. Discussion of discharge computation at river control structures.
[23] Roth A, Hager W. Underow of standard sluice gate. Experiments in Fluids
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE 1977;103(12):14814.
[16] Noutsopoulos GK, Fanariotis S. Discussion to free ow immediately below 1999;27:33950.
sluice gates, by N. Rajaratnam. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE
1978;104:4514.

You might also like