Calibration of Submerged Radial Gates

A. J. Clemmens, M.ASCE1; T. S. Strelkoff, M.ASCE2; and J. A. Replogle, F.ASCE3

Abstract: Calibration equations for free-flowing radial gates typically provide sufficient accuracy for irrigation district operations.
However, many water purveyors have difficulty in determining accurate discharges when the downstream water level begins to submerge
the gate. Based on experimental laboratory studies, we have developed a new calibration method for free-flowing and submerged radial
gates that allows for multiple gates and widely varying upstream and downstream channel conditions. The method uses the energy
equation on the upstream side of the structure and the momentum equation on the downstream side, and thus is called the Energy-
Momentum Method. An iterative solution is required to solve these two equations, but this allows calibration from free flow to submerged
flow continuously through the transition. Adjustments to the energy equation for free flow are described, along with an additional energy
adjustment for the transition to submerged flow. An application is used to describe the new procedure and how it overcomes the limitations
of current energy-based methods.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9429共2003兲129:9共680兲
CE Database subject headings: Gates; Flow measurement; Hydraulic jets; Hydraulic jumps; Calibration.

Introduction the width of the downstream channel 共e.g., at the head of the All
American Canal in Southern California兲.
Radial gates are a common water control structure in much of the In 1999, we conducted a study on the calibration of radial
western United States. Their advantage over vertical sluice gates gates in the hydraulics laboratory of the U.S. Water Conservation
is that the lifting force is minimal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclama- Laboratory. Details of the experimental setup are provided in a
tion has used radial gates as a standard structure for nearly a later section. In this paper, we present a solution method for sub-
century. They are also used in private irrigation projects, and in merged radial gates that uses the energy equation on the upstream
projects of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. These structures are side of the gate 共the same as for free flow兲 and the momentum
pervasive in canals or regulated streams in the central and western equation on the downstream side. A new transition between sub-
United States. merged and free flow is defined as an adjustment to the energy
Calibration methods for free-flowing radial gates are available equation.
in standard references and have been used with reasonable suc-
cess to measure flow 共Henderson 1966; Bos 1989兲. Calibration of
submerged flows have had mixed success, with errors up to 50% Theory
reported in some cases. These calibration methods are based ex-
clusively on the energy equation. Some use the momentum equa- Free Flow
tion to define the limit between submerged and free flow. How-
ever, a major flaw with all these methods is that they are all based The calibration of flow under a vertical sluice gate is a classic
on upstream and downstream channels that are rectangular with a problem in hydraulic engineering and has been studied for more
width the same as the gate, and typically have the same floor than a century 共e.g., von Helmholtz 1868兲. Montes 共1997兲 pro-
elevation. This rarely occurs in practice. Where multiple gates vides an excellent summary of the theoretical and experimental
occur, submerged calibration has proven successful only when all studies that have been conducted under free-flow conditions 共i.e.,
gates are open the same amount and their total width is similar to not influenced by downstream water depth兲. However, the discus-
sion of Montes’ article by Speerli and Hager 共1999兲 and by
1
Laboratory Director, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, USDA- Webby 共1999兲, along with Montes’ 共1999兲 closure, suggest that
ARS, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040. E-mail: our theoretical understanding of even free-flowing sluice gates is
bclemmens@uswcl.ars.ag.gov incomplete. For practical application, the errors associated with
2 these disagreements in theory are relatively small, being at most
Research Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory,
USDA-ARS, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040. E-mail: ⫾5%. Many gates contain a J-seal at the lip to allow the gate to
fstrelkoff@uswcl.ars.ag.gov seal when it is closed. This alters the calibration by more than
3
Research Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, these theoretical discrepancies. Thus, field calibrations are often
USDA-ARS, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040. E-mail: used, which side-steps these theoretical details. However, the re-
jreplogle@uswcl.ars.ag.gov search on submerged flow reported herein relies on the free-flow
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2004. Separate discussions
theory, thus it is worth further discussion.
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing The complexity of the problem stems from our inability to
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- theoretically determine the free surface configuration downstream
sible publication on June 25, 2002; approved on March 19, 2003. This from the gate, even in free flow. The jet emanating from under the
paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, gate reaches a minimum depth at the vena contracta 共Section 2 in
September 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2003/9-680– 687/$18.00. Fig. 1兲. The theoretical difficulties are associated with defining

680 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

 Fig. 1. Definition sketch for radial gate

the contraction coefficient ␦ 共ratio of minimum depth y j to gate

opening w兲 for the variety of flow configurations encountered. In Fig. 2. Vertical sluice gate discharge coefficients for free and sub-
general, the contraction coefficient varies with the angle of the merged flow 共after Henry 1950 and Swamee 1992兲. Similar curves
gate ␪. Results shown later suggest that the contraction coefficient for radial gates vary with gate dimensions.
is not significantly influenced by the ratio of gate opening to
upstream energy head w/H 1 .
If we apply the energy equation between Section 1 共see Fig. 1兲 free兲. He suggested that the discrepancy in the prediction of dis-
upstream from the gate 共rectangular channel with the same width charge with the contraction coefficient was primarily due to en-
as the gate兲 and the vena contracta, assuming no energy losses ergy losses in the upstream channel as the flow approached the
and no downstream influence, we get gate. The development of boundary layers on the floor below the
gate and on the gate face could not explain all of the differences
q2 q2 q2 found. Webby 共1999兲 disagreed with Montes’ conclusion that en-
H 1 ⫽y 1 ⫹ ⫽y j ⫹ ⫽␦w⫹ (1) ergy loss exists upstream from the gate, comparing field measure-
2gy 1 2
2gy j 2
2g 共 ␦w 兲 2
ments with theoretical predictions of the contraction coefficient
where H 1 ⫽upstream energy head; y 1 ⫽upstream water depth; q by Isaacs and Allen 共1994兲. Insufficient data were provided on
⫽discharge per unit width of gate and channel; y j ⫽␦w is the these field trials to judge their accuracy. Speerli and Hager 共1999兲
depth at the vena contracta or minimum jet thickness; and g present support for the notion of energy losses, showing clear
⫽acceleration of gravity. The discharge for a rectangular channel pictures of eddies and vortices. However, to date no one has pro-
Q⫽qb c . Substituting this relationship into Eq. 共1兲 and solving posed a method for estimating the actual energy loss. While much
for discharge results in of this discussion is for vertical sluice gates, the same issues
apply to radial gates.
Q⫽C d wb c 冑2gy 1 (2)
For this study of radial gates, we propose an energy equation
where b c ⫽width of the gate and C d ⫽discharge coefficient. An based on the jet velocity head, as follows:
expression for C d can be derived from Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲, namely
共Bos 1989兲 v 2j v 2j
H 1 ⫽H j ⫹⌬H⫽y j ⫹␣ j ⫹␰ (4)
2g 2g
␦
C d⫽ (3) where H j ⫽energy head at the vena contracta; ␣ j ⫽velocity dis-
冑1⫹␦w/y 1 tribution coefficient; and ␰⫽energy loss coefficient. Experimen-
This equation applies to both vertical sluice gates and radial gates, tally, we cannot separate the effects of jet velocity distribution,
the primary difference being the value of the contraction coeffi- reflected by ␣ j , from our energy loss term, reflected by ␰. For
cient. simplicity, we will assume ␣ j ⫽1. Any deviation from unity by ␣ j
Two approaches can be used to solve Eq. 共2兲 for discharge will end up in ␰, giving a combined coefficient. As with other
when the upstream water depth, gate opening, and width are hydraulic structures, this energy loss coefficient is expected to be
known. In one, a value for C d is read from a graph 共e.g., Fig. 2兲 a function of the Reynolds number.
or computed from an equation fit to laboratory data. For vertical Since the discharge is equal to velocity times area, in the jet
sluice gates, this discharge coefficient is a function of the relative we have Q⫽␦wb c v j . Substituting for v j and y j in Eq. 共4兲 and
gate opening w/H 1 , or w/y 1 as shown in Eq. 共3兲. Such graphs are solving for discharge gives
commonly recommended 共Henry 1950; Rajaratnam and Subra-
manya 1967b; Buyalski 1983; Bos 1989兲. Alternatively, ␦ is
found from a table or equation and C d computed from Eq. 共3兲
Q⫽␦wb c 冑 2g 共 H 1 ⫺␦w 兲
1⫹␰
(5)

共Bos 1989兲. Not surprisingly, the empirical relationships for C d For a given geometry, this provides a relationship between dis-
provide more accurate estimates of discharge than do measured charge and upstream energy head, with only the contraction co-
contraction coefficients and Eq. 共3兲. Montes 共1997兲 summarizes efficient ␦ and the loss coefficient ␰ to be evaluated.
the theoretical work that has gone into the determination of the This differs substantially from prior solutions of the radial-gate
contraction coefficient and the reasons why the contraction coef- energy equation in several ways. First, it is expressed in terms of
ficient, alone, is insufficient to determine the discharge coeffi- upstream energy head rather than depth. This allows one to have
cient. Most of his research dealt with flat sluice gates, either ver- an upstream velocity head that is not related to the flow in any
tical or inclined. Montes found that the contraction coefficient one gate, as assumed in Eq. 共2兲, for example when multiple gates
was strongly influenced by the gate angle 共for the case of radial and weirs are used. Second, it includes an energy loss term rather
gates, the angle of the gate lip ␪, where the water surface becomes than relying on empirical discharge coefficients. And finally, the

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 681

contraction coefficient is not buried in the discharge coefficient. and ultimately equivalent procedure, we postulate a kinetic en-
These differences allow us to determine the head-discharge rela- ergy correction term E corr for the transition zone, such that the
tionships for a wider range of conditions than other methods. energy equation becomes

v 2j v 2j
Submerged Flow H 1 ⫽y 2 ⫹ ⫹␰ ⫺E corr (6)
2g 2g
Only a few studies on submerged radial gates are available in the
in which the subscript j refers to the ‘‘live stream’’ conditions in
literature. The most common approach has been to use an empiri-
the jet at the vena contracta and the subscript 2 refers to the vena
cal discharge coefficient according to the amount of submergence.
contracta location, whether free or submerged. In this relation-
This approach was suggested by Henry 共1950兲 and Rajaratnam
ship, v j is set to Q/b c y j , with y j remaining at the free-flow value,
and Subramanya 共1967b兲 for vertical sluice gates and used by
␦w. The nature of this energy correction is presented in a later
Buyalski 共1983兲 for radial gates. One difficulty with this approach
section. Solving Eq. 共6兲 for discharge yields
is that the curves are very steep, resulting in a large change in
discharge coefficient for a small change in upstream depth or gate
opening. Another approach 共Bos 1989兲 is to use the same dis-
charge coefficient as for free flow, but with the water level differ-
Q⫽␦wb c 冑 2g 共 H 1 ⫺y 2 ⫹E corr兲
1⫹␰
(7)

ence across the gate replacing the upstream depth. A challenge The solution of Eq. 共6兲 for submerged discharge requires, in
with this approach is to determine when to use the upstream head addition to what is needed for free flow in Eq. 共2兲, an estimate of
and when to use the head differential. The standard textbook ap- the energy correction E corr and an estimate for the depth y 2 at the
proach is to use the conjugate depth equation for a rectangular vena contracta. This depth is extremely difficult to measure in the
channel to determine whether or not the gate is submerged 关e.g., field. The flow there is highly turbulent and ‘‘frothy’’ such that a
as suggested by Bos 共1989兲兴. surface measurement is insufficient to determine the true depth
These approaches have a major flaw when applied to practical 共i.e., as reflected in the pressure below the surface兲 and accurate
situations. All of the studies and the conjugate depth relationship wall-pressure taps are difficult to construct for such high velocity
assume that the downstream channel is of the same cross section flows. This depth is not currently measured in the field. Instead,
as the gate. The calibration results are highly dependent upon this the water depth in the downstream channel y 3 is measured. To
condition, and the assumed condition is rarely found in practice. utilize the measured depth y 3 instead of y 2 , a momentum rela-
The current approaches cannot easily deal with these real-world tionship between Sections 2 and 3 is introduced.
conditions. Conservation of momentum, applied from the vena contracta
Where a hydraulic jump occurs, energy losses are difficult, if to Section 3, can be written as
not impossible, to predict. This usually requires solution of the
momentum equation. However, it is also not practical to solve the y 22 Fw F3
momentum equation from the upstream section to the down- Q v e ⫹b c g ⫹ ⫽Q v 3 ⫹ (8)
2 ␳ ␳
stream section since the forces on the gate are unknown. Instead,
we propose to use the energy equation from the upstream side to where v e ⫽effective velocity in the jet 共discussed below兲; v 3
the vena contracta, where we think we can capture the essential ⫽downstream velocity; ␳⫽density of water 共mass per unit vol-
flow conditions, and the momentum equation from the vena con- ume兲; F 3 ⫽hydrostatic-pressure force exerted by the downstream
tracta to the downstream section. Under normal operation, the water depth; and F w ⫽component of the force of water on all
depth and velocity at the vena contracta will not be measured. surfaces between Sections 2 and 3 in the direction of flow, includ-
Instead, those conditions must be inferred from the equations. ing hydrostatic forces on all walls. These surfaces can be deter-
Application of the energy and momentum equations to sub- mined by taking the downstream area and projecting it back to
merged flow conditions assumes that the jet thickness essentially Section 2 共assuming the section only expands from Section 2 to
remains constant. Such results were found by Rajaratnam and Section 3兲. Projected surfaces include the edges of the piers that
Subramanya 共1967a兲, among others. To date, no one has ques- separate the individual gates, closed gates, weir overfall sections,
tioned the validity of this assumption during initial submergence, and the canal walls where the cross section expands. For rectan-
although it is well recognized that calibrations under such condi- gular cross sections, the force terms reduce to bgy 2 /2, with sub-
tions are problematic. However, measurement of velocity distri- scripts 3 or w on b and y. For the short distances involved here,
butions within hydraulic jumps 共Rajaratnam 1965a, b; Narayanan we can ignore the channel friction and bed slope effects.
1975; and Gunal and Narayanan 1996兲 show a decreasing jet Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲 represent solutions for flow on the upstream
velocity with distance into the jump, exhibiting a deceleration and downstream sides of the vena contracta, with Q and y 2 un-
entirely in keeping with the adverse pressure gradient, the in- known, and the rest derivable from the measured water depths,
creasing depth within the jump, and distance from the toe. In fact, gate opening, cross-section shapes, and empirical relationships for
the flow just downstream from the gate, as y 2 is increased, com- ␦, and ␰, and E corr .
prises an incomplete jump gradually approaching the classical Simultaneous solution of these two equations is referred to
wall jet 共Rouse et al. 1959兲, and finally a standard wall jet with here as the energy-momentum 共E-M兲 method. Application of this
the jet similar in configuration to the jet under free flow. Thus the method is complicated by 共1兲 quantification of the energy loss
jet goes from its free-flow thickness to something wider, and then coefficient ␰; 共2兲 application of the energy equation under slightly
back to its free-flow thickness as it goes from free to partially submerged conditions 共i.e., E corr); and 共3兲 estimation of the wall
submerged to highly submerged. forces for application of the momentum equation. The force on
Numerical modeling of this behavior during initial submer- the walls is assumed to be based on a water depth there—
gence between Sections 1 and 2 with the energy equation requires hypothesized to be between the depths at Sections 2 and 3. The
a reduction in jet velocity, and for a constant discharge, an expan- effective water depth at the walls is found as the weighted aver-
sion in the jet thickness 关as suggested by Tel 共2000兲兴. In a simpler, age of these two depths, with weighting coefficient p

682 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

 y w ⫽py 3 ⫹ 共 1⫺p 兲 y 2 (9)
Laboratory experiments were performed to develop the neces-
sary relationships and to test the applicability of these equations.

Experimental Setup

A model radial gate structure provided by the Salt River Project

共SRP兲 was used to conduct these experiments. The gate-lip seals
were removed for the experiments so that we could make sure
that we could properly model the phenomenon without the seals.
New side walls were constructed for the gate since those provided
by SRP were broken and did not match our channel. The 4-ft
共1.23 m兲 wide 2-ft 共0.61 m兲 high glass-sided flume at the U.S.
Water Conservation Laboratory was used to perform these tests.
The flume is 15.2 m long, of which only a small part was needed Fig. 3. Radial gate contraction coefficient ␦ as function of gate angle
for these tests. Water was supplied from a constant head tank and ␪
discharges were weighed in a large weigh-tank and scale system.
The head-tank, flume and weigh-tank system has a capacity of
500 L/s, although this model was capable of handling only about tests were run until the gate was fully submerged. Submerged
60 L/s. flow data were collected for only one gate position, w
The radial gate is 0.457 m wide and has a radius of 0.457 m. ⫽0.0762 m.
The gate is set between two side walls that are 1.219 m long. The In this study, the contraction coefficients were found by mea-
trunnion-pin height is set at 0.366 m, and is placed 0.091 m up- suring the gate opening and measuring the pressure in the jet at
stream from the downstream end of the side walls, which, if the vena contracta with a Prandtl tube roughly in the center of the
scaled, is typical of SRP installations. An entrance transition was jet. For several runs, we measured the pressure distribution within
constructed to avoid a blunt entry into the gate structure, since the the jet and it was sufficiently hydrostatic, verifying that our single
gate width is less than half of the flume width. This entrance has pressure readings were sufficient to define the contraction coeffi-
a radius of 0.39 m. The upstream and downstream water levels cient.
were measured at distances 3.5 m upstream and 7.59 m down-
stream from the gate trunnion, respectively. The water levels, ve-
locities, and energy heads for Section 2 were measured at a dis- Results
tance from the gate lip of two times the gate opening, the
approximate location of the vena contracta.
Free Flow
The upstream water level was measured with a point gauge.
The downstream water levels at Sections 2 and 3 were measured Fig. 3 shows the values of ␦ from this experiment and from prior
with the static side of a 5 mm-diameter Prandtl tube which was studies, as a function of the angle of the gate lip ␪. These data
placed in the middle of the stream. The depth of water at Section suggest the following relationship 关reported by Tel 共2000兲兴:
2 under free-flow conditions was also measured with a point
␦⫽1.001⫺0.2349␪⫺0.1843␪ 2 ⫹0.1133␪ 3 (10)
gauge. Velocity distributions at Section 2 were measured with a 2
mm-diameter Prandtl tube. All water levels and pressures were where ␪⫽arccos(兵a-w其/r) expressed in radians; r⫽radial gate ra-
registered to the invert elevation immediately under the gate. dius; and a⫽gate trunnion-pin height 共height of gate pivot point
For the free-flow experiments, the gate position was set and above invert兲. The data from the current study 共originally reported
accurately measured. Then flow was turned on and a discharge by Tel兲 essentially confirms the relationship of Toch 共1955兲. We
set. Once the flow stabilized, the water-level and velocity mea- found essentially no influence of w/H 1 on the contraction coeffi-
surements were made, and discharge measurements were taken cient.
with an 30,000 L 共8,000 gallon兲 weight tank system which is This is consistent with most of the experimental data presented
typically accurate to 0.1%. Then the flow is set to a new discharge by Montes 共1997兲 and with some theoretical results, such as
and the process repeated. The range of discharge for each gate Fangmeier and Strelkoff 共1968兲. But it is in contrast to many of
opening was determined at a minimum, to provide orifice flow, the theoretical studies, particularly Isaacs and Allen 共1994兲. The
and at a maximum, to avoid overtopping. Free-flow tests were run field data of Webby 共1999兲 is varied, with one site in agreement
at gate openings of 0.0381, 0.0762, 0.1143, 0.1524, and 0.1905 m. with Toch 共Tekapo Inlet兲 and another which shows a large dis-
For the submerged-flow experiments, the gate position was set crepancy 共Arapuni Spillway兲. At this point, we trust the labora-
and measured. The flow was turned on and set with free flow tory data over the theoretical predictions and field data, although
emerging from under the gate. Water level and discharge mea- more laboratory data would be useful to support this. The data in
surements were taken. Then a gate downstream from the y 3 mea- Fig. 3 do not support the recommendation of Bos 共1989兲 to use
surement site was raised, gradually, until the upstream water level Henderson’s equation 共Henderson 1966兲.
increased by 1 mm. This was judged to be the start of submer- Velocity profile measurements under free flow showed that the
gence. All water levels were measured, as was the discharge, once velocity distribution coefficient ␣ j varied between 1.01 and 1.03.
flow had stabilized. After these measurements, the downstream This value is influenced by the drag on the walls, which is ex-
gate was raised a small amount and the process repeated. The pected to be relatively less for the prototype than for the scale
number of water levels for which submerged flow was measured model. However, since values of ␰ are much larger, we combined
varied from 6 to 9 for each discharge. However in all cases, the these two for further analysis below, and expressed this as 1

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 683

Fig. 4. Combined velocity distribution and energy coefficient as a Fig. 6. Preliminary application of energy equation from upstream
function of entrance Reynolds number for free flowing radial gate side of radial gate structure to vena contracta 共flows in m3/s兲

⫹␰, where ␣ j has been set to unity. The combined coefficient is between the laboratory results reported by Montes 共1997兲 and the
shown in Fig. 4, which shows values ranging from 1.04 to 1.12. field data reported by Webby 共1999兲.
An equation was fit to the data, which has the combined coeffi- Solution of Eq. 共5兲 with the coefficients from Eqs. 共10兲 and
cient approaching 1.0 as the Reynolds number approaches infin- 共11兲 共Figs. 3 and 4兲 agreed with laboratory data to within about
ity. The Reynolds number used here R was defined as the velocity 1% in all but a few cases 共Fig. 5兲. The large spread in error
共unit width discharge divided by gate opening兲 times the hydrau- resulted from data at one particular gate opening, suggesting a
lic radius just upstream from the gate 共area over wetted perimeter minor problem with measurements taken for that gate opening.
for upstream water depth immediately upstream from the gate, Otherwise, errors were within ⫾1%.
i.e., within gate piers兲 divided by the kinematic viscosity. Other
ways to express the Reynolds number were tested, but this pro- Submerged Flow
vided the best fit 共highest correlation兲 or least scatter in the re-
sults. The resulting relationship is From Eq. 共6兲 without the correction term, one might expect a
⫺6 nearly linear relationship between y 1 and y 2 for a constant dis-
1⫹␰⫽1⫹0.15e ⫺5⫻10 R
(11) charge. However, laboratory results differ substantially from this
Of note is that the energy loss for this scale model is highly result, as shown in Fig. 6. At high submergence, this relationship
dependent upon the Reynolds number. This is consistent with our looks reasonable, suggesting that the jet is the same size as under
previous research on critical depth flumes, where energy losses free flow, only submerged. Tel 共2000兲 suggested adjusting the
were related to the Reynolds number 共Replogle 1975; Bos et al. energy equation by adjusting the jet thickness, but a useful rela-
1984; Clemmens et al. 2001兲. Of significance to this research is tionship could not be found.
that these energy losses are relatively high for laboratory models We solved Eq. 共6兲 for E corr with the measured values of Q, y 1 ,
where Reynolds numbers are low. For prototype gates, Reynolds and y 2 , and with ␰ from the free-flow tests. The resulting energy
numbers may be an order of magnitude higher. Extrapolation of correction relative to the change in depth at the vena contracta
the results presented in Fig. 4 would suggest energy losses for 关 E corr /(y 2 ⫺y j ) 兴 is shown in Fig. 7 as a function of this change in
field-scale gates on the order of 1 or 2% and not strongly influ- depth relative to the free-flow jet thickness 关 (y 2 ⫺y j )/y j 兴 . The
enced by Reynolds numbers. This may explain the discrepancy consistency of the relationship shown in Fig. 7 for different dis-
charges 共and w/H 1 values兲 is encouraging. It essentially says that

Fig. 5. Accuracy of radial gate free-flow discharge computed with Fig. 7. Relative energy adjustment required to apply free-flow
energy equation and curve fits for contraction coefficient and energy energy equation to submerged flow for a radial gate up to vena
loss coefficient contracta 共flows in m3/s兲

684 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

 Fig. 9. Error in discharge computed with the energy-momentum
method as function of relative gate opening 共flows in m3/s兲
Fig. 8. Weighting coefficient p for water depth on back wall of radial
gate structure 共flows in m3/s兲
sharp transition range in Fig. 7 共relative energy adjustment values
between 0.2 and 0.8兲. Those within the sharp transition zone have
for small submergence depths, the contribution of that depth in- errors that ranged from ⫺8 to ⫹12%, while all the other values
crease to the apparent increase in energy at Section 2 is small are estimated to within ⫺4 to ⫹3%. We also speculate that the
共i.e., almost 100% of the depth increase is canceled with E corr). relative depth at which the transition shown in Fig. 7 occurs is a
Here, the low depth over the high-speed jet behaves essentially function of the ratio w/H 1 , although there are not enough data
like a hydraulic jump to slow the jet down. When the jet becomes points to define such a relationship 共i.e., Fig. 7 would consist of a
highly submerged, the adverse pressure gradient typical of the family of curves兲.
jump vanishes, and the thickness of the jet essentially returns to
its original value. Thus the behavior shown in Fig. 7 is entirely
reasonable. While the partial jump is in effect, increases in tail
Discussion
water elevation have almost no effect on upstream water level.
But as the ‘‘wall-jet’’ condition is approached, further increases in The range of conditions and the accuracy of estimated discharges
tailwater depth produce corresponding upstream depth changes. suggest that the contraction coefficient and energy loss coeffi-
The fitted equation for the relationship in Fig. 7 is cients are sufficiently accurate for free-flow conditions when gate

冉
E corr⫽ 共 y 2 ⫺y j 兲 0.52⫺0.34 arctan 7.89 再 冋 册 冎冊
y 2 ⫺y j
yj
⫺0.83
seals are not used. Additional tests are needed to determine the
influence of the gate seals on these relationships.
For submerged conditions, further studies are needed to define
(12)
the energy-correction relationship over a wider range of condi-
which we restrict to values between 0 and 1. This relationship tions 共e.g., with a range of w/H 1 values兲. The study reported here
essentially describes the transition from free to fully submerged used only one gate position. In theory, this does not pose a limi-
flow, and allows us to compute flow continuously through the tation. However, further experiments at other gate positions
transition zone without changing equations. would determine whether or not other variables influence the re-
An equivalent jet velocity for use in the momentum equation lationships posed. Such studies also might provide enough data to
was determined by replacing the second and fourth terms on the separate the effects of w/H 1 on the energy correction. It is not
right-hand side of Eq. 共6兲 expected that the use of a gate seal will influence submerged
v 2e v 2j calibration, beyond its influence on free-flow conditions, but this
⫽ ⫺E corr (13) needs to be verified.
2g 2g
Use of the momentum equation under submerged conditions
The equivalent velocity then replaces the jet velocity in mo- requires an estimate of the backpressure on walls on the down-
mentum Eq. 共8兲, since this effective velocity more accurately re- stream side of the check structure. While an average relative
flects the actual momentum. This formulation leaves the com- value from the tests was used in the analysis presented here, this
puted upstream energy loss unchanged, except with Reynolds relative value is likely to vary with the layout of the gates and
number 共which changes with discharge and upstream depth as the weirs within a check structure. Application of the E-M method
gate becomes submerged兲. might require refinements in this estimated pressure.
The measured data were used to compute the coefficient p for Also, additional studies of submergence are needed at values
the effective wall pressure from Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 assuming hydro- of w/H 1 above 2/3, a theoretical limit at low submergence, but
static pressure distributions, as shown in Fig. 8. While there was which can be greatly exceeded at high submergence.
some scatter in the data, a strong trend was not apparent. For the
remaining analysis, an average value of 0.643 was used.
At this point, some verification of the relationships was at- Application
tempted. The energy and momentum equations 关Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲兴
were solved with only knowledge of the upstream and down- As an example, we provide an application at the Salt River
stream water levels and the gate opening and dimensions. The Project 共SRP兲 in Arizona. At some check structures, operators
relationships in Eqs. 共10兲 through 共13兲 共Figs. 3, 4, and 7兲 were report flow errors as high as 50%. SRP has been using the free-
used, along with p⫽0.643. The resulting errors in discharge are flow 关i.e., Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲兴 and submerged 关i.e., Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲
shown in Fig. 9. The circled values are those that fall within the with y 1 ⫺y 3 replacing y 1 in Eq. 共2兲兴 radial-gate calibration

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 685

 occurs more rapidly at first, when submergence is just started, but
then becomes more gradual and only approaches the submerged-
energy-equation solution when the gate is highly submerged 共ap-
proximately twice the conjugate depth兲.
Many SRP check structures contain multiple gates 共e.g., 3 to 5兲
and often weirs on either side of the gates. SRP does not try to
keep all gates at the same opening, and at low flows may have
one or more gates closed. Thus the effective width of the down-
stream channel may be much wider than that of the gates that are
open. In this case, the downstream velocity does not reflect con-
ditions on which the energy-based radial-gate equations are
based. In particular, the conjugate depth is much lower. The E-M
solution was computed for a situation where the downstream
channel is twice as wide as the gate. This result is shown in Fig.
Fig. 10. Radial-gate flow rates computed with energy equation 共as 10 as the E-M solution with an expanded section. It shows the
used by SRP兲 and energy-momentum method 共fixed gate opening and change in conjugate depth and how that influences the calibration.
upstream depth兲 Eventually the two E-M solutions converge, but again at very
high submergence. For tailwater depths in between the two con-
jugate depths, differences reach roughly 15%. For wider expan-
sions, and thus lower downstream velocities, larger differences
method suggested by Bos 共1989兲. Under this method, the gate is are possible.
assumed to be submerged when the downstream water level As can be seen, SRP’s alternate transition zone more nearly
reaches the conjugate depth. The specifics of the gate conditions matches the solution for a downstream channel that is twice as
for this example are as follows: gate width, b c ⫽1.22 m 共4 ft兲; wide as the active gates. Thus the need to have multiple transition
trunnion-pin height, a⫽1.24 m 共4.06 ft兲; gate radius, r⫽1.52 m zones can be explained entirely by which and how many gates are
共5 ft兲; gate radial travel⫽0.140 m 共0.46 ft兲; vertical gate opening, being used at a site relative to the downstream channel width. Not
w⫽0.087 m 共0.285 ft兲; forebay water level, y 1 ⫽1.54 m 共5.05 ft兲; having all gates at the same position further complicates the situ-
and gate angle, ␪⫽0.715 rad. For their calibration procedures, ation, since some may be submerged while others are not. The
they use a contraction coefficient, ␦⫽0.733, which from Eq. 共3兲 E-M solution provides a method for computing the discharge of
gives a free flow discharge coefficient C d ⫽0.718; and submerged each gate at a check structure, even when their submergence con-
discharge coefficient C d ⫽0.734. These gates have a stiff rubber ditions differ.
music-note seal.
The results of application of Bos’ 共1989兲 equations are shown
in Fig. 10, where the calibration relationships for a fixed gate and
given upstream water level are shown as a function of down-
Conclusions
stream 共afterbay兲 depth. The horizontal line at the top represents
free flow 共i.e., not influenced by downstream depth兲. The far right A new method was developed for the calibration of radial gates,
point of this horizontal line represents the depth conjugate to the called the energy-momentum or E-M method.
free-flowing jet thickness at its vena contracta for a downstream • Under free flow, the energy equation is used to determine dis-
channel of the same width as the gate. The lower heavy line is the charge. The free-flow calibration requires a contraction coeffi-
energy-based submerged-flow solution, where discharge is pro- cient and an energy loss coefficient. Equations are provided
portional to the square root of the head difference. here for both.
No recommendation is given on transitioning from the conju- • Under submerged flow, the energy equation is used for the
gate depth point to the submerged-flow line. A straight drop is upstream side of the gate 共upstream from vena contracta兲 and
implied, but is clearly unreasonable. SRP chose to use a 1 ft 共0.3 the momentum equation is used for the downstream side of the
m兲 transition zone starting at the conjugate depth, described es- gate 共downstream from vena contracta兲. The point of transition
sentially by a straight 共dashed兲 line, as shown in Fig. 10. In some between free and submerged flow is determined by the mo-
situations, SRP personnel found that this transition was not pro- mentum equation.
viding an appropriate solution. They experimented with another
• An energy adjustment is required for the energy equation
transition, assuming that the one ft 共0.3 m兲 transition zone was
under submerged flow to adjust for the changes in the vena
centered around the computed conjugate depth. This alternative
contracta during initial submergence. A rough equation is pro-
transition zone is also shown as a dashed line in Fig. 10. Selection
of the best transition was by trial and error, and they found that vided for this transition, but this needs further refinement.
the selection varied from gate to gate and even with flow rate for • The momentum equation must account for the hydrostatic
a given gate. forces on the downstream side of the check structure. An ap-
We applied the proposed energy-momentum 共E-M兲 solution to proximate method for determining this was provided, but this
this situation. In order to match the SRP conditions under free likely needs refinement.
flow for this gate with a gate-lip seal, we used their contraction An example was provided that shows how differences between
coefficient of 0.733 and assumed no energy loss 共i.e., 1⫹␰ the downstream channel and gate width affect the gate calibration
⫽1.0). The E-M solution is shown in Fig. 10. As one can see, the under submerged flow. The example also contrasts the E-M
SRP transition zone does a reasonable job of matching this tran- method with an existing method of applying the energy equation
sition, although differences of roughly 8% occur. The transition to submerged flow.

686 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

Acknowledgments References

The writers would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jan Bos, M. G., ed. 共1989兲. Discharge measurement structures, 3rd Ed., Pub-
Tel and Skip Eshelman who collected the laboratory data. The lication 20, International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement/ILRI, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
high quality of this data allowed useful relationships to be devel-
Bos, M. G., Replogle, J. A., and Clemmens, A. J. 共1984兲. Flow measuring
oped. Jan Tel also performed some of the preliminary data analy- flumes for open channel systems, Wiley, New York.
ses that ultimately led to the results presented here. The writers Buyalski, C. P. 共1983兲. Discharge algorithms for canal radial gates,
would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Robert REC-ERC-83-9, Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Bureau of
Gooch and the Salt River Project for supplying the model gate Reclamation, Denver.
and for providing the example conditions. Clemmens, A. J., Wahl, T. L., Bos, M. G., and Replogle, J. A. 共2001兲.
Water measurement with flumes and weirs, Publication #58, Interna-
tional Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Notation Fangmeier, D. D., and Strelkoff, T. S. 共1968兲. ‘‘Solutions for gravity flow
under sluice gates.’’ J. Eng. Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 94共1兲,
The following symbols are used in this paper: 153–176.
a ⫽ gate trunnion-pin height 共height of gate pivot point Gunal, M., and Narayanan, R. 共1996兲. ‘‘Hydraulic jump in sloping chan-
above invert兲; nels.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 122共8兲, 436 – 442.
b c ⫽ gate width; Henderson, F. M. 共1966兲. Open channel flow, The Macmillan Company,
New York.
b w ⫽ width of structure walls on downstream side;
Henry, H. 共1950兲. ‘‘Discussion: Diffusion of submerged jet.’’ Trans. Am.
C d ⫽ discharge coefficient Soc. Civ. Eng., 115, 687– 697.
E corr⫽ energy correction term; Isaacs, L. T., and Allen, P. H. 共1994兲. ‘‘Contraction coefficients for radial
F w ⫽ component of force of water on all surfaces between sluice gates.’’ Proc. 1994 Int. Conf. on Hydraulics in Civil Engineer-
Sections 2 and 3 in direction of flow, including ing, National Conf. Publ. No. 94/1, Institute of Engineers, Barton,
hydrostatic forces on all walls; ACT, Australia, 262–265.
F 3 ⫽ hydrostatic-pressure force exerted by downstream Montes, J. S. 共1997兲. ‘‘Irrotational flow and real fluid effects under planar
water depth; sluice gates.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 123共3兲, 219–232.
Montes, J. S. 共1999兲. ‘‘Closure to ‘Irrotational flow and real fluid effects
g ⫽ acceleration of gravity;
under planar sluice gates’. ’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共2兲, 212–213.
H j ⫽ energy head at vena contracta; Narayanan, R. 共1975兲. ‘‘Wall jet analogy to hydraulic jump.’’ J. Hydraul.
H 1 ⫽ upstream energy head; Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 101共3兲, 347–359.
k ⫽ kinematic viscosity (1.14⫻10⫺6 m2 /s) Rajaratnam, N. 共1965a兲. ‘‘Submerged hydraulic jump.’’ J. Hydraul. Div.,
p ⫽ depth weighting coefficient; Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 91共4兲, 71–96.
Q ⫽ discharge; Rajaratnam, N. 共1965b兲. ‘‘The hydraulic jump as a wall jet.’’ J. Hydraul.
q ⫽ discharge per unit width of gate or channel; Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 91共5兲, 107–132.
R ⫽ Reynolds number⫽ v R/k, where v ⫽Q/b c w and R Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K. 共1967a兲. ‘‘Flow Immediately below
submerged sluice gate.’’ J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 93共4兲,
⫽b c y 1 /(b c ⫹2y 1 );
57–77.
r ⫽ radial gate radius; Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K. 共1967b兲. ‘‘Flow equations for sluice
v e ⫽ effective flow velocity for vena contracta under gate.’’ J. Irrig. Drain. Div., Proc., ASCE, 93共IR3兲, 167–186.
submerged flow; Replogle, J. A. 共1975兲. ‘‘Critical flow flumes with complex cross-
v j ⫽ average flow velocity at the vena contracta under free section.’’ Irrigation and drainage in an age of competition for re-
flow; sources, ASCE Specialty Conf. Proc., New York, 366 –388.
v 1 ⫽ average flow velocity upstream from gate; Rouse, H., Siao, T. T., and Nagaratnam, S. 共1959兲. ‘‘Turbulence charac-
v 3 ⫽ average flow velocity downstream from gate; teristics of the hydraulic jump.’’ Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 124, 926 –
966.
w ⫽ gate opening;
Speerli, J., and Hager, W. H. 共1999兲. ‘‘Discussion: Irrotational flow and
y j ⫽ water depth at vena contracta under free flow or real fluid effects under planar sluice gates.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共2兲,
minimum jet thickness; 208 –210.
y w ⫽ water depth on downstream side of structure walls; Swamee, P. K. 共1992兲. ‘‘Sluice-gate discharge equations.’’ J. Irrig. Drain.
y 1 ⫽ upstream water depth; Eng., 118共1兲, 56 – 60.
y 2 ⫽ water depth at vena contracta; Tel, J. 共2000兲. ‘‘Discharge relations for radial gates.’’ MSc thesis, Delft
y 3 ⫽ downstream water depth; Technical Univ., Delft, The Netherlands.
␣ j ⫽ velocity distribution coefficient; Toch, A. 共1955兲. ‘‘Discharge characteristics of Tainter gates.’’ Trans. Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 120, 290–300.
␦ ⫽ contraction coefficient 共ratio of minimum depth y j to
von Helmholtz, H. L. 共1868兲. ‘‘Ueber diskontinuirliche Flussigkeitbewe-
gate opening w兲; gungen.’’ Monatsberichten der Königlich Pressischen Akademie der
␪ ⫽ angle of the gate lip; Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 215–228 共in German兲.
␰ ⫽ energy loss coefficient; and Webby, M. G. 共1999兲. ‘‘Discussion: Irrotational flow and real fluid effects
␳ ⫽ density of water 共mass per unit volume兲. under planar sluice gates.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 125共2兲, 210–212.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 687