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:
Received 16 October 2012
Received in revised form
28 May 2013
Accepted 2 June 2013
Available online 12 June 2013

The present work demonstrates the characteristics of ow from sluice gates under free and submerged
ow conditions using Energy and Momentum Equations (EMEs). The experimental data was used from
the research works reported by different investigators to calibrate the proposed equations. An equation
for estimation energy loss factor of sluice gate at free ow was presented and effect of this parameter on
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
of energy loss factor on discharge coefcient and distinguishing limit were investigated. In this research
the concepts of submergence limit of the gate and the submergence limit of hydraulic jump will be
distinguished. By determining effective pressure on the gate and using EMEs, equations for variations
of sluice gate's contraction coefcient with relative opening and relative submergence were presented.
The result shows that at free ow condition, a minimum contraction coefcient obtained under a certain
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.

Keywords:
Sluice gate
Discharge coefcient
Contraction coefcient
Energy loss factor
Distinguishing limit
Stage-discharge relationship

1. Introduction
Sluice gates are devices which commonly were used for ow
control in irrigation canals. Furthermore, they could be used as
simple and inexpensive structures for ow measurement with
known accuracy. For this goal, study on the sluice gate as a
measuring structure should be needed. Although this structure
has simple design and have been used for many years ago, there
are some aspects about ow under sluice gates, for example,
determination of discharge passed from the sluice gate as a
classical problem in hydraulic engineering, investigation on contraction coefcient, energy loss factor and effects of these parameters on discharge coefcient, distinguishing limit. More
investigations on this structure are specialized at free ow condition and minor studies were done at submerged ow which occurs
commonly in irrigation networks. Henry [1] performed an extensive experimental work for determination of sluice gate's discharge coefcient under free and submerged ow conditions.
He has reported an individual curve for this which used to date,
specially for submerged ow conditions. Rajaratnam & Subramanya [2] presented new denitions of sluice gate's discharge
coefcient at free and submerged ow conditions. Swamee [3]
digitized Henry's [1] curve and with assuming discharge

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +98 2632241119.

E-mail address: jfarhoudi@ut.ac.ir (J. Farhoudi).

0955-5986/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.owmeasinst.2013.06.001

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

is equal or less than gate opening, presented equations for
determination of discharge coefcient. Ferro [4] masterminded a
sample relation yclept to stage-discharge for estimation sluice gate
discharge at free ow condition. This relation was extended by
Ansar [5] and Ferro [6] for submerged ow condition. Lin et al. [7]
investigated effect of gate lip's shape on contraction coefcient.
They have reported that the contraction coefcient increases in
round lip. Belaud et al. [8] used the energy-momentum equilibrium and reported a theoretical framework to estimate the
contraction coefcient under free and submerged ow conditions.
Lozano et al. [9] considered some sluice gates in irrigation canals
operating under submerged ow conditions and found that the
inuences of contraction coefcient and energy loss on discharge
coefcient are considerable at high submergence level. Habibzadeh et al. [10] investigated role of sluice gate's energy loss on
discharge coefcient. They have reported that attention to sluice
gate's energy loss is valid for accurate estimation of discharge.
Cassan and Belaud [11] studied the ow at upstream and downstream of sluice gates and took benet from a laboratory
layout and two dimensional numerical simulation of RNG k-
(Re-Normalization Group) and RSM (Reynolds Stress Model)
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
free ow condition demonstrates an acceptable precision; however under submerged condition particularly, at low submergence

H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

F pt
pz

Nomenclature
a
b
af ; bf
as ; bs
Cc
Cd
C df
C ds
C dexp
g
hp z
hpgmax
I
I
k
F p1
F p2
F g1
F g1
Fc

relative gate opening (a w=y0 )

gate width
parameters in stage-discharge relation at free ow
condition
parameters in stage-discharge relation at submerged
ow condition
contraction coefcient
discharge coefcient
discharge coefcient at free ow condition
discharge coefcient at submerged ow condition
experimental discharge coefcient
acceleration due to gravity
effective energy head at upstream face of the gate and
any depth (z) from the bed
maximum effective energy head at upstream face of
the gate with free ow
integration of pressure head behind at upstream face
of the gate with free ow
integration of pressure head behind at upstream face
of the gate with submerged ow
factor of pressure force at upstream face of the gate at
submerged ow
forces due to hydrostatic pressure at upstream section
forces due to hydrostatic pressure at downstream
section
forces acting on upstream face of the gate
forces acting on downstream face of the gate
force due to deviation from hydrostatic pressure
distribution

q
s
s
sd
w
y0
y1
y3
yt
yc
yt
yt
X

pz

97

forces due to hydrostatic pressure at tailwater section

pressure at upstream face of the gate and any depth
(z) from the bed
discharge per unit width of the gate
relative submergence (s y3 =y0 )
relative tailwater depth (s yt =y0 )
tailwater depth into gate opening (sd yt =w)
gate opening
upstream ow depth
thickness of the vena contraction
downstream depth (immediately downstream of the
gate)
tailwater depth
critical depth
tailwater depth at the threshold state of hydraulic
jump
tailwater depth at the threshold state of sluice gate
relative maximum pressure head behind of sluice gate
dimensionless function of pressure distribution
behind the gate in free ow
dimensionless function of pressure distribution
behind the gate in submerged ow
specify weight
deviation from hydrostatic pressure at contracted
region at any depth (z) from the bed
sluice gate's energy loss factor
correction factor for pressure distribution in vena
contraction
1 for submerged ow (0 for free ow)
mass density

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

Suggested relationship

Researcher

Suggested relationship

Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2]

0:611

C d p
10:6112 w=y0 2
 0:075
C d 0:489 yw
0

0:072
0 w
C d 0:611 y y15w
0

0:0649
0 w
C d 0:6113 y y15w

Ferro [4]

Cd

Larsen and Mishra [13]

Swamee [3]
Alhamid [14]

Garbrecht [15]
Noutsopoulos and Fanariotis [16]
Nago [17]

aw=4

q
C d 0:64680:1641 yw
0
q
C d 0:620:15 yw
0


C d 0:6exp 0:3 yw
0

which needs a correction factor to be applied. They have improved

the accuracy of stage-discharge relation by using Incomplete SelfSimilarity and denition of Discharge Reduction Factor (DRF). Table 1
summarizes all relationships reported by several researchers to
estimate discharge coefcient of sluice gates under free and submerged ow conditions where; wgate opening, y0 upstream ow
depth, ; coefcients, and a w=y0 .
The research is primarily based on using the energy equation at
upstream and downstream of the gate to estimate energy loss
coefcient at free ow condition which would be applied to
determine the discharge coefcient. Then by using both EMEs,
the discharge coefcient of the gate is estimated under submerged
ow condition. The effect of energy loss was introduced in the
equations to dene the variation of energy loss with tailwater
condition. Using EMEs before and after the gate together with
pressure distribution behind the gate, some equations were
derived to estimate the contraction coefcient showing its
dependency on gate opening and relative submergence. Ferro's
[4,6] method was carefully considered under free and submerged

w=2
p
2

conditions. It is shown that a considerable increase in the accuracy

of ow discharge will be occurred when the parameters of this
relation were dened as functions of relative gate opening and
relative tailwater depth.

2. Energy loss factor of sluice gate at free ow condition

Referring to Fig. 1, the energy equation before and after the gate
could be expressed as:
y0

q2
q2
q2
y3

2
2
2gy0
2gy1
2gy21

in which y0 , y1 and y3 are ow depths as shown in Fig. 1. g is the

acceleration due to gravity and q is the ow discharge per unit
width of the rectangular channel. The energy head loss of the
sluice gate in Eq. (1) is dened as q2 =2gy21 which is the energy
loss factor. By dening a w=y0 (relative opening), s y3 =y0
(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
C d 2

1 C d 2 a2 s1

Eq. (2) presented energy loss factor for submerged ow condition. 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
C d 2

1 C d 2 a2 C c a1

Eq. (3) shows energy loss factor at free ow condition depends on

relative gate opening, contraction coefcient and discharge coefcient. 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

Fig. 3. Estimation of sluice gate's energy loss factor for free ow condition.

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 contraction 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
et al.'s [10] suggestion of 0.062 as an average value of energy loss
factor at free ow condition by assumption of C c 0:61. Using the

Fig. 4. Comparison of C d values by several authors based on experimental data

from Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2].

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

could estimate energy loss coefcient from Fig. 3 as:

Fig. 1. Denition sketch for ow under sluice gates.

Fig. 2. Henry's [1] curve for determination sluice gate's discharge coefcient.

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

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

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 demonstrate a relationship for discharge coefcient related to contraction
coefcient, energy loss factor, and relative gate opening as:
s
1C c a
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 overestimating 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 consideration 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
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
Subramanya [2]

Swamee
[3]

Alhamid
[14]

Garbrecht
[15]

Nago
[17]

Noutsopoulos and
Fanariotis [16]

Eq. (7)
Cc 0.61

Eq. (7)Cc
(Eq. (4))

R2a
MAEb
Max relative Error%
Min relative error%
Percentage of data points with
7 2.5% errors
Percentage of data points with
7 5% errors

0.843
0.073
30.553
2.113
15.789

0.953
0.013
0.166
5.011
63.158

0.953
0.006
0.145
3.625
84.211

0.953
0.0166
4.756
0.369
26.316

0.960
0.007
2.528
1.363
94.737

0.953
0.006
1.519
3.145
89.474

0.932
0.008
2.167
4.073
89.474

0.962
0.006
1.91
1.702
100

15.789

94.737

100

100

100

100

100

100

where
xi calculated data, x^ i observed data and x mean value of observations.
a
b

x x^ 2

R2 1 in 1 xi xi 2
i 1 i
MAE 1n ni jxi x^ i j

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

from Sawari [20].

Fig. 6. Inuences of energy loss on discharge coefcient of sluice gate.

a domain where is ranging from 0 to 0.1. It is noteworthy to

mention that this limits are 0.050.15 according to Swamee [3]
whereas, the proposed equation suggests values of 0.050.1.

in which is approximated to 0.08 at a distance; x 1:15wfrom

the gate.
Introducing the above relationships in Eq. (9) and assuming
0, results in:

3. General equation for discharge coefcient at submerged

ow condition

a w=y0 ; s y3 =y0 ; s yt =y0 s2

Applying the energy equation before and after the gate where
the energy loss was overlooked, it results in:
 2
Cd
1 C d 2 a2 s
8
Cc
Considering the ow distance between immediate downstream
section of the gate and where the tailwater is fully developed, the
momentum equation could be expressed as (see Fig. 7):
F x qV x -F p2 F c qV 2 F pt qV t
F p2

y3
q
q
y ; qV 2 q

;
g y1
2 3
2
gy1

F pt

yt
y2
q
q2
yt t ; qV t q
g yt
2
2
gyt

y23

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
pressure force at vena contracta:


Z z y1
z
q2
pz 1
2 ; 0 z y1 -F c
pz dz
y1
2y1
z0


Z
z

y
1
q2
z
q2
dz
1
10

y1
4gy1
2gy21 z 0

C d 2 a
s2
C 2 a2
2 d

Cc
2
s

11

Eliminating the relative submergence (s) from Eqs. (8) and

(11), gives a theoretical equation to determine the discharge
coefcient at submerged ow condition as:
v
r
u

2



u
2
2
u2a2 2 2 4a2 4a
2a2 2 2 4as 4a
4 s2 1 a4 1 4 2a 2
Cc
Cc
s
u
C c
C c
C c
C c
Cd t
2
2a4 C24 4a
C 2
c

12
Using sd yt =w s=a as dened in Henry's [1] curve at submerged
ow condition, we achieve:
v
r
u

2



u
2
4a
u2a2 2 2 4a 4a
2a2 2 2 4a
4 a2 s2d 1 a4 1 4 2a 2
sd
Cc
sd C c
u
C c
C c
C c
C c
Cd t
2
2a4 2 4 4a 2
C c

C c

13
Fig. 8 compares the theoretical discharge coefcient determined by Eq. (13) where C c 0:61, with Henry's [1] experimental
curves which shows an acceptable t. Fig. 9 is a plot of the relative
errors between theoretical and experimental results which indicates that Eq. (13) is overestimating the discharge coefcient,
which would be high in low discharges. The results from Fig. 9
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

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

R2
MAE
Max relative error%
Min relative error%
Percentage of data points with 7 2.5% errors
Percentage of data points with 75% errors

0.823
0.074
43.052
2.482
1.980
18.812

0.829
0.016
9.341
4.351
48.515
83.168

0.828
0.014
3.534
8.292
53.465
90.099

0.723
0.015
9.287
6.995
50.495
88.119

0.723
0.016
7.543
8.262
45.544
91.089

0.827
0.021
11.418
3.357
32.673
70.297

0.773
0.014
7.587
6.993
55.446
94.059

0.848
0.012
5.960
7.804
63.367
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 .

Fig. 8. Comparison between discharge coefcient between Eq. (13) and Henry's
[1] curve.

Table 4
Evaluation of proposed equation for estimation the discharge coefcient in
submerged ow condition.
Parameters

Eq. (13)
0

Eq. (14)
(Fig. 11)

Eq. (14)
0.08

Max relative error%

Min relative error%
Percentage of data points with
7 2.5% errors

24.648
22.125
7.936

9.920
7.2816
71.304

16.260
13.824
61.475

Therefore Eq. (13) could be modied as:

v
r

u
2

 2 
2
u
2
4a
2 21 4a 4a
2 s 1
4 1 2a 1
u2a2 212 4a

2a

4
a
a
2
4
2
sd
Cc
sd
Cc
d
C c
C c
C c
C c
u
Cd t
2
2

2a4 21
4aC1
C 4
2
c

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

Fig. 9. Evaluation of relative error from different methods.

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

factor () with relative tailwater depths (yt =w). For a certain value

H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

of yt =w and using experimental data retrieved from Henry's [1]

curve, an optimum value of is determined so that the Mean
Absolute Error (MAE 1=nni 1 jC dexp C d j) to be minimum
(where C dexp is the experimental discharge coefcient and C d is
discharge coefcient determined by Eq. (14)). Fig. 10 shows the
variation of MAE with for yt =w 5. In Fig. 11 the energy loss
factor under submerged ow condition is depicted against different C c values which shows that, the energy loss factor tends to
increase considerably with contraction coefcient.
b) The second approach is presentation an average value for
energy loss factor, dependent on relative tailwater depth. Using
all experimental data from Henry's [1] curve and assumption a
constant value of 0.61 for C c , the average value of energy loss
factor was obtained 0.08 which veries the value of 0.088
reported by Habibzadeh et al. [10]. Using proposed values for
energy loss factor, the relative errors of discharge coefcient

101

would be decreased, as shown in Fig. 9 and Table 4. If Eq. (14) is

used by application the proposed values of from Fig. 11 and
C c 0:61, the relative errors are between 75% in most cases
(71% with relative errors under 72.5% and 91% under 7 5%).
Consequently, Eq. (14) with proposed values of can be used
for estimation the discharge coefcient at submerged ow
condition with acceptable accuracy, notwithstanding its complexity in form.
Another investigation for evaluation of Eq. (14) was conducted
based on the experimental data extracted from Rajaratnam and
Subramanya [2] as well as from Sepulveda [21] which was taken
from some sluice gates with 43.4 and 44 cm widths. Fig. 12 shows
that Eq. (14) closely relates the discharge coefcients to experimental values. It is noteworthy to mention that the accuracy
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

Fig. 12. Evaluation of different methods for estimation discharge coefcient

(Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2] and Sepulveda [21]).

Fig. 13. Schematic sketch of threshold states for hydraulic jump and sluice gate.

Identifying the free or submerged ow conditions and the

threshold between two regimes are vital for accurate ow measurement through a gate (Bijankhan et al. [12]). It should be noted
that no difference between the threshold states for gate and
hydraulic jump was mentioned in some texts. Therefore it would
be useful to differentiate between the threshold states for hydraulic 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
2
y0
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
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

coefcient on submergence limit. In other words, ignoring the
effect of energy loss on submergence limit would resume the
submerged ow to free ow condition which is obviously
erroneous.
On the other hands, it can be observed from Fig. 13 that the
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
needs higher tailwater level yt than needed for threshold
condition of the hydraulic jump (yt ). Swamee [3] proposed the
following relations for estimation discharge coefcient at free (C df )
and submerged (C ds ) ow conditions by digitizing Henry's [1]
curve:

0:072
1a
C df 0:611
16
1 15a
8
91
"

0:072
 0:72 #0:7
<
=
1a
s
C ds 0:611
1s0:7 0:32 0:81s
1
1s0:7
:
;
1 15a
a

17
According to Fig. 2, in the threshold state of sluice gate C df C ds .
Using Eqs. (16) and (17) results in:
yt
1:13033a0:418605
y0

18

Fig. 14 shows that one has to distinguish the submergence limits

between the hydraulic jump (Eq. 15) and sluice gate (Eq. 18). This
shows that there would be some ow conditions at which the
hydraulic jump becomes submerged whereas the gate is still
under free ow condition.

5. Contraction coefcient of the sluice gate at free and

submerged ow conditions
At submerged ow condition, the forces inuencing control
volume, as shown in Fig. 15, are:

 Forces due to hydrostatic pressure are Fp1 and Fp2, respectively.

 Forces acting on the upstream and downstream faces of the
gate are Fg1 and Fg2, respectively.

 Force due to the deviation from hydrostatic pressure distribution is F c .

On the other hand, the momentum equation between
upstream and downstream of the gate could be expressed as:
F x qV x -F p1 F g2 qV 1 F p2 F g1 F c qV 2
y

F p1

y20
2

; F g2

F p2

y23
2

; F g1 I; F c

3 w

y3 w 2 y3 w2 ; qV 1
q2
4gy1

; qV 2

19

in which 1 for submerged ow, 0at free ow and

Rz y
I z w0 pz=dy is the total pressure head behind at upstream
face of the gate with submerged ow. Substituting the above
relationships in Eq. (19) results in:
y20
y2 4q2
q2
y w2
3
I
2 2 3
gy0
2
4gy1

Elimination of ow intensity (q) from Eqs. (1) and (20) and

assuming 0, reveals a theoretical equation to determine the
contraction coefcient related to the relative gate opening, relative
submergence and pressure distribution behind the gate:
Cc

r
2



4
2
4
s12 4 32 a2 2a2 s sa3 a2 a2 12 a2 as
2 a


3a2 4a2 s 2sa3 a4 2a2

4
2 a1s

21
in which

I
y20

22

At the free ow condition one could dene; s C c a and 0.

Therefore, Eq. (21) would be alerted as:
a3 C c 3 3a2 C c 2 2 3 aC c 21 0

23

in which I=y20 and I is the total pressure head at upstream face

of the gate. The value of could be determined by using Eqs.
(7) and (20) as ( 0; y3 y1 ; 0; I I):

1a2 C c 2 C d 2 a=C c 4C c a 4
2

24

where C c is the contraction coefcient which would be dened

from Eq. (7) as ( 0):
q
aC d 2 C d 4 C d a2
25
Cc
2
Thus is known if the discharge coefcient and relative
opening are known. Roth and Hager [23] from their measurements
suggested the following equation to estimate the effective energy
head at upstream face of the gate and any depth (z) from the bed:


 #

 r"
w
zw 1=7
zw 8=7
hp z 1:538y0 w 10:3tanh 2:3

y0
y0 w
y0 w

26
According to their recommendation, the maximum effective
energy head at upstream face of the gate with free ow could be
approximated by:

 r
w
hpgmax y0 w 10:3tanh 2:3
27
y0

q2
gy0

q2
gy1

Fig. 15. Effective forces on the control volume.

20

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:
p
- 0:628021a2 10:3tanh2:3 a

I=y20

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).
In this condition, Eq. (20) for determination of I=y20 results in:
q
1 a2
4
C d a 1s C d a2
sa 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
0:628021a2 10:3tanh2:3 a

Fig. 18. Variation of calculated contraction coefcient with relative opening of the
gate under free ow condition.

31

Dening an auxiliary parameter X as:

X

p
hpgmax
hpgmax =y0
1a10:3tanh2:3 a

s
y3
y3 =y0

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):
k 3:072:12e0:0174X

1:97

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
coefcient descending to a minimum value at w=y0 0:6 and then
increases thereafter which is in accordance with Belaud et al. [8].
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
contraction coefcient pertains a lesser value while a repelled
jump is occurred. It is also seen that the contraction coefcient
would be higher at threshold state of the gate compared with free
hydraulic jump. Fig. 19 shows variations of contraction coefcient
with relative opening and relative submergence at submerged
ow condition. It is shown that the contraction coefcient can be
increased or decreased with relative submergence. At low submergence level (s 0:2 to s 0:5), the contraction coefcient
decreases with relative submergence and increases for high
submergence level (s 0:5 to s 0:9). As the ow becomes
submerged, the force due to water weight over the contracted
section is increased and the thickness of vena contracta decreases.

Fig. 19. Variation of calculated contraction coefcient with relative gate opening
and relative submergence under submerged ow condition (a) s 0:20:5 and
(b) s 0:50:9

This is dominant factor at low submergence level. On the other

hand, as the ow becomes more submerged, the difference
between water levels upstream and downstream of the gate
decreases and the exit velocity under the gate would also decrease
which results in some increase at the thickness of vena contracta
and contraction coefcient which would be more effective at
submergence level.
The contraction coefcient can be used for estimation discharge coefcient at free and submerged ow.
s
1s
Cd Cc
33
1C 2c a2
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 coefcient would be 2% and 4% at free and submerged ow conditions,
respectively.
6. Estimating the ow through sluice gate using stagedischarge relationship

Fig. 17. Variation of k values with X.

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 somehow 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

Fig. 20. Evaluation of proposed equations for estimation discharge coefcients

in free and submerged ow conditions (Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2]).

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 acceptable accuracy. It is recommended some more works with wide
range of gate width to be conducted for more certainty of
equations in form (35).
Ferro [6] also suggested the following stage-discharge relationship for submerged ow condition:
y y bs
yc
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

Fig. 21. Evaluation of stage-discharge relations in (a) free ow condition and

(b) submerged ow conditions.

if a sample relationship, such as stage-discharge relationship, is

derived to give the required accuracy in ow determination. Ferro
[4] proposed the following form of stage-discharge relationship to
estimate the ow through the gate at free ow condition as:
y bf
yc
af 0
w
w

34

where ap
and bf are variable parameters, and yc is the critical
f
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.
[12] used some retrieved data reported by Rajaratnam and Subramanya [2], Ferro [4] and Cassan and Belaud [11], and proposed
af 0:7839, bf 0:3845. Since, the width of the gates used by
Ferro [4] was different from those utilized by Rajaratnam and
Subramanya [2], Ferro [4] and Cassan and Belaud [11], it seems
that the values of af and bf are dependent on the width of gate.
Therefore, it would be recommended that the scale effects should
be considered in determining af and bf values to avoid any
miscalculation of these parameters.
In this research, the experimental data reported by Rajaratnam
and Subramanya [2], Sawari [20] and Cassan and Belaud [11] at
free ow condition which were taken in several widths of gate
ranging from 10 to 45.72 cm were used and the following

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 acceptable accuracy basis on EMEs. There would be some ow conditions at which the hydraulic jump becomes submerged whereas
the gate is still under free ow condition. At free ow, contraction
coefcient tends to decrease with relative opening and reaches to
a minimum value and increases thereafter. At submerged ow
condition, contraction coefcient would be either increased or
decreased depending on the level of ow submergence. It was
considered that the parameters in stage-discharge relations as
functions of w=b and yt =b at free and submerged ow conditions,
respectively.
References
[1] Henry R. Discussion to On submerged jets. Transactions of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 1950;115:68794.
[2] Rajaratnam N, Subramanya K. Flow equation for the sluice gate. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 1967;93(3):16786.
[3] Swamee P. Sluice gate discharge equations. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(1):5660.
[4] Ferro V. Simultaneous ow over and under a gate. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):1903.
[5] Ansar M. Discussion of simultaneous ow over and under a gate by V. Ferro.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering; ASCE 2001;127(5):3256.
[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.
[7] Lin CH, Yen JF, Tsai CT. Inuence of sluice gate contraction coefcient on
distinguishing condition. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
2002;128(4):24952.
[8] Belaud G, Cassan L, Baume JP. Calculation of contraction coefcient under
sluice gates and application to discharge measurement. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, ASCE 2009;135(12):108691.

H. Khalili Shayan, J. Farhoudi / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 33 (2013) 96105

[9] Lozano D, Mateos L, Merkley GP, Clemmens AJ. Field calibration of submerged
sluice gates in irrigation canals. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
ASCE 2009;135(6):76372.
[10] Habibzadeh A, Vatankhah AR, Rajaratnam N. Role of energy loss on discharge
characteristics of sluice gates. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 2011;137
(9):107984.
[11] Cassan L, Belaud G. Experimental and numerical investigation of ow under
sluice gates. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 2012;138(4):36773.
[12] Bijankhan M, Ferro V, Kouchakzadeh S. New stage-discharge relationships for
free and submerged sluice gates. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
2012;28:506.
[13] Larsen AP, Mishra PK. Constant discharge device for eld irrigation. Journal of
Hydraulic Research 1990;28(4):4819.
[14] Alhamid AA. Coefcient of discharge for free ow sluice gates. Journal of King
Saud University, Engineering Science, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1999;11(1):3348.
[15] Garbrecht G. Discussion of discharge computation at river control structures.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE 1977;103(12):14814.
[16] Noutsopoulos GK, Fanariotis S. Discussion to free ow immediately below
sluice gates, by N. Rajaratnam. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE
1978;104:4514.

105

[17] Nago H. Inuence of gate-shapes on discharge coefcients. Transactions of the

Japanese Society of Civil Engineers 1978;10(2):1169.
[18] Henderson FM. Open channel ow. New York: Macmillan; 1966.
[19] Woycicki K. The hydraulic jump on its role on discharge of sluice gates.
Denver: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; 1935 Technical rep. no. 3-2.
[20] Sawari H. The impact of bafe distance on the bafe gate distributors [M.Sc.
degree thesis]. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran; 2010. [under supervisions of
Prof. Kouchakzadeh S.] (in Persian).
[21] Sepulveda C. Instrumentation, model identication, and control of an experimental irrigation canal. Barcelona, Spain: Department of Hydraulic, Maritime
and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia; 2007 [Ph.D.
thesis].
[22] Blanger JB. Essai sur la solution numrique de quelques problmes relatifs au
mouvement permanent des eaux courantes. Paris, France: Carilian-Goeury;
1828.
[23] Roth A, Hager W. Underow of standard sluice gate. Experiments in Fluids
1999;27:33950.