Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
Table 1
Summary of reported relationships for discharge coefcient of sluice gates.
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
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
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))
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
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:
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
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))
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
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:
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.
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
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
7. Conclusions
[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.