Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FINAL EXPERIMENT
TITLE: “A study on the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway having a creager-ofitserov profile using Multi-
purpose Teaching Flume”
II. Objectives:
This study aims to examine the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway with different number of
functional openings.
1. To observe the operation of the siphon spillway
2. To calculate the discharge capacity in different number of openings
3. To determine the most efficient number of opening to be used in dams and leeves that will execute the
best results on releasing overflowing water.
IV. Discussion:
The physical model is an incomparable tool of communication; that provides a three-dimensional and
complete overall appreciation of project and facilitates the explanation of the hydraulic phenomena. Physical
hydraulic models have an important further role of assistance to the decision-making (Chanson, 2004). The siphon
spillway is a structure in closed duct, generally with rectangular section in a typical width to height ratio b/a of 1.5to
2.5and an aeration cross-section at 3 to 5 % of the siphon crest section. The siphon spillway works under
increasing discharge like a weir. At a certain discharge, the priming occurs and the flow is pressurized for larger
discharges (Vischer and Hager, 1997). Several investigations have been carried out for the explanation of
Generally, the spillways are installed to evacuate the excess water or over flow that the reservoir could
not store. In diversion dams, the spillway is used to bypass the overflow of the system. The spillway can be
installed independently from the body of the dam, or it can be part of it, similar to spillway in concrete dams. Siphon
sillways consists of closed system with the shape of inverted U. In stalling this kind of spillways, the internal part of
the dam from the weir. The act of siphon starts when the air inside the upper bend located above the crest is
removed. Then due to the suction effect of gravity force of water, underneath part of the siphon, the flow would be
Abstract:
The main advantage of siphon spillway is that with minor increase in the upper part of the water level, a
significant increase is observed in the spillway discharge. The other advantages are automatically wok and their
good performance without the need for mechanical instruments or other stimulants (Samani 1997).
Three models of the gate were tested and examined; each of them constituted of several configurations
differentiated by the number of the functional openings. The first model was tested to three openings, the second
model consists of two openings. The third model consists in testing one opening. By this we aim limiting the
optional cross-section of the siphon, that ensures a maximum discharge, maintaining constant the other conditions
of influence (mainly, the flow conditions and longitudinal section of the siphon).
Introduction:
Creager-Ofitserov profile, studied in four alternative models with different number of functional openings with
various configurations based on variation of the cross section. The study highlighted a clear distinction for not and
almost complete prime areas for low head and complete prime areas for the remainder of the values of the head
applied to the level upstream. It is to be announced that the coefficients of discharge of the siphon’s models
increase very quickly while going from the first to the fourth model, for this purpose the optimal cross section
corresponding to the maximum coefficient of discharge was fixed. The variation at the same time of the coefficient
of discharge, the ratio of the head on vertical dimension at the crown of the siphon and the Froude number were
formulated. At the particular case of priming, this formulation deduces a new relationship making possible to
IV. Resources
Siphon spill way having a creager-ofitserov profile
Siphon spillway is a hydraulic structure that is usually provided to release flood that cannot be
safely stored in the reservoir in order to prevent damage to the dam and it’s downstream.
The siphon spillway is installed in a flume with 1000cm x 60cm x 50cm (L*H*W) size
Multi-purpose teaching flume used to measure the flow rate of water in open channel. A flume is
defined as a special shaped, fixed hydraulic structure that under free-flow conditions forces flow to
accelerate in swell manner that the flow rate through the flume that can be characterized by a level-no-flow
Sometimes called a ruler or line gauge, is a device used in technical drawing, engineering and
Caliper
A caliper is a device used to measure the distance between two opposite sides of an object.
V. Procedures
1. Prepare all the materials needed in the experiment.
2. Measure cross-sectional area of the Siphon Spillway and the opening of the different gate.
3. Position the Siphon Spillway according to desire location in the Teaching flume.
9. Repeat steps 7-8 for different value of flow rate (5 flow rate)
30 cm
18 cm
1cm
7.5 cm
30 cm
18 cm
7.5 cm
Hydraulics Engineering 2018
30 cm
18 cm
7.5 cm
Hydraulics Engineering 2018
The discharge evacuated by the siphon considered as a pressurized conduct is given by the following
relation:
To compute for Vp :
Where: h = is the height of the difference in the height of the water and the spillway (m)
To Compute for V a:
(Table 7.5 shows the data for discharge capacity of spillway with gate)
Figure 7.1 Graph results of the discharge capacity of the Siphon spillway
In figure 4.1 shows the graph of the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway without gate and has gate
with different opening. It shows that the graph is declining because the discharge capacity is dropping because the
cross-sectional area of the inflow of the water in the teaching flume become smaller.
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Column 1 5 28.398 5.6796 0.156303
Column 2 5 25.18 5.036 0.041713
Column 3 5 24.8 4.96 0.028088
Column 4 5 19.159 3.8318 0.307161
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
6.17E-
Between Groups 8.843899 3 2.947966 22.11256 06 3.238872
Within Groups 2.133062 16 0.133316
Total 10.97696 19
Figure 7.2 shows the Statistical Analysis of the Data gathered of discharge capacity of the siphon
spillway. It uses ANOVA- Single Factor. It is used when comparing more than three groups based on one factor
variable. An observation is given by the average discharge capacity of the spillway, plus the effect of the gate. And
an “error” term, every gate is different and therefore any discharge will be different. A one-way ANOVA will tell you
that at least two groups were different from each other. But it won’t tell you what groups were different. If your test
returns a significant f-statistic, you may need to run an ad hoc test (like the Least Significant Difference test) to tell
It is stated that if the Sig value is greater than 05, You can conclude that there is no statistically significant
difference between your three conditions. You can conclude that the differences between condition Means are
likely due to chance and not likely due to the IV manipulation. If the Sig value is less than or equal to .05, You can
conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between your three conditions. You can conclude that the
We can see that the significance value is 6.17E-06, which is below 0.05. and, therefore, there is a
This computation shows the average discharge capacity of the 4 different treats.
This computation shows the average discharge capacity of all the trials of the experiment.
This computation shows the difference between the mean of each treats and the average discharge
We also want to weigh each squared deviation by the size of the sample. In other words, a deviation is
given greater weight if it’s from a larger sample. Hence, we’ll multiply each squared deviation by each sample size
and add them up. This is called the sum-of-squares for between-group variability
Between groups:
We can measure Within-group variability by looking at how much each value in each sample differs
from its respective sample mean. So first, we’ll take the squared deviation of each value from its respective sample
mean and add them up. This is the sum of squares for within-group variability.
Within groups:
We find the sum of each squared deviation and divide it by the degrees of freedom. For our between-
group variability, we will find each squared deviation, weigh them by their sample size, sum them up, and divide by
the degrees of freedom ( ), which in the case of between-group variability is the number of sample means
(k) minus 1.
Like between-group variability, we then divide the sum of squared deviations by the degrees of
freedom to find a less-biased estimator for the average squared deviation (essentially, the average-sized
square from the figure above). Again, this quotient is called the mean square, but for within-group
variability: . This time, the degrees of freedom is the sum of the sample sizes (N) minus the number of
samples (k). Another way to look at degrees of freedom is that we have the total number of values (N), and
-F value:
VIII. Observation
In our research, in measuring the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway includes a gate with different
number of openings; 3 opening, 2 opening and 1 opening. During conduction of the experiment, the researchers
observed that the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway is fluctuating. By doing so, the researchers took the
IX. Conclusion
1. The discharge capacity of the spillway was calculated using the Bernoulli’s Theorem. The relation between
the head and unit discharge for the gate with one, two and three opening was obtained from the results of
the experiment. These results were extrapolated to the actual discharge coefficient of the spillway.
2. The average discharge capacity of the siphon spillway with a gate is 5.630 m 3/s, the discharge capacity of
the siphon spillway with a gate that has three opening is 5.036 m 3/s, with two opening is 4.960 m 3/s and
3. Three different situations for inflow-gate opening were computed. The results show that a gate with one
opening is more efficient compared to the spillway without a gate because the discharge capacity of the
4. Based on the analyzed data and results it can be concluded that a siphon spillway that has a gate can be
used to control the release of flows from dams or leeves into a downstream area.
Recommendation:
Based on the results gathered and conclusions drawn, some recommendations are considered needed to
further explore:
1. The researchers recommend further study on the discharge coefficient of the Siphon spillway that has an
orifice.
2. The researchers recommend conducting a follow-up study about the effect of the gate on the spillway.
3. The researchers recommend a different cross-sectional area and obtain its specific discharge and
X. Related Literature
The study entitled “Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the Creager-Ofitserov Profile ”
stated that the physical model is an incomparable tool of communication; that provides a three-dimensional and
complete overall appreciation of project and facilitates the explanation of the hydraulic phenomena. Physical
hydraulic models have an important further role of assistance to the decisionmaking (Chanson, 2004). The siphon
spillway is a structure in closed duct, generally with rectangular section in a typical width to height ratio b/a of 1.5 to
2.5 and an aeration cross-section at 3 to 5 % of the siphon crest section. The siphon spillway works under
increasing discharge like a weir. At a certain discharge, the priming occurs and the flow is pressurized for larger
discharges (Vischer and Hager, 1997). Several investigations have been carried out for the explanation of general
dams.
Four models of the siphon were tested and examined; each of them constituted of several configurations
differentiated by the number of the functional openings. The first model was tested to four, three and two openings;
1.33. The third model consists in testing two cases: one and two openings to b/a = 2. The fourth model with single
opening is defined by b/a = 4. By this we aim limiting the optimal cross-section of the siphon, that ensures a
maximum discharge, maintaining constant the other conditions of influence (mainly, the flow conditions and
longitudinal section of the siphon). Finally, a particular attention is given to the relationship f(µ, Fr, H/a) = 0
The capacity of discharge for four models of the siphon spillways profiled in the Creager – Ofitserov type
has been experimentally examined. The study devoted to the four siphon models shows clear distinction of the
priming areas, not and almost complete for low heads and complete one for the remaining of the values of the
head H applied to the level upstream. It is to be announced that the value of the coordinate of the point of the
siphons priming increases with the augmentation of the coefficient of discharge µ. The study also allows the
conclusion that this coefficient increases while going from the first to the fourth model. However, it is almost
constant and independent of the 405 number of functional openings in the same hydraulic system defined by each
tested model. Taking into account the total cross-section of the siphons, with their total capacities, the study
defines b/a ratio, that characterizes the optimal section corresponding to the maximal coefficient of discharge
µmax.
(Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim, Bachir Achour (2006). Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the
Creager-Ofitserov Profile. International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 33, No.5. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/ES_SS_CO.pdf)
This study entitled “Experimental Comparative Study of Siphon Spillway and Over-Flow Spillway ” tested two types of
spillways. The first one is a weir considered as an over-flow spillway with Creager profile, the second is a siphon
complete prime areas relating to low heads and complete prime areas for the remainder of the values of heads
applied to the level upstream. The field of convenience of the siphon spillway compared to the weir was defined.
between flow over a weir and the siphon for the same range of
siphons spillway and weir made possible to define the fields according to value of the ratio H/a where the siphon is
considered to be better in evacuation than the weir under the same conditions of flow and vice versa. Finally, the
study presents linear and non-linear relationships between the flow over the weir considered as an over-flow
When the rectangular siphon duct operates with full section without of air bubbles, the work is considered
in complete priming; thus it is possible to conclude: A clear distinction of the no complete priming areas, for low
head values applied to the level upstream of the siphon, as well as a complete priming area beginning at the
operation point characterized by a head H equal to (a = 4.3 cm). The value of the priming flow Qspriming at head H
Lecturer, Research Laboratory in Applied Hydraulics, Department of Hydraulic, University of Batna, Algeria. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/502-1748-1-PB.pdf)
This study entitled “Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections ” stated that Siphon
spillways are structures that use in many dams and irrigation networks and drainage. The siphon spillway works
under increasing discharge like an ogee spillway. At a certain point of discharge, the priming occurs, and the flow is
pressurized for larger discharges. Estimating the relationship between discharge coefficient and discharge with
reservoir level in this spillway is an important parameter in the designing process. Commonly, the cross sections of
models of siphon spillway, with equal cross sections are made. In this study, all experiments were done in condition
In the present experimental work, by using two physical models of siphon spillway with different cross
section, discharge coefficient in two sections was studied. Experiments show that discharge coefficient in siphon
spillway with circular cross section is higher than rectangular section that this one is better and more suitable for
With comparing the changes of discharge coefficient in rectangular and circular cross sections of siphon
spillways based on Reynolds number as shown in Fig. 6 is observed that in a consistent level of tank water in both
cross sections of spillway, the flow in circular cross section has a higher Reynolds number, that is because of
(Amin Ghafourian and Mohd. Nordin Adlan (2012). Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections, School of Civil
This study entitled “The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic” stated that in many water and electricity projects
such as dams, releasing flow with specific discharge and considering large capacity to control spare volume of
water and completely necessary. These types of structure, which are known as spillway are used to govern
probably flood out of Reservoir. Spillway structure are so complicated and hard building for study and analyzing
hydraulic behavior. My developed software could be utilized. In some cases, because of lack of knowledge
physical model should be build. Then, analyzing would be done subsequently. In this research upstream flow of
siphon spillway with rectangular have been simulate numerically. This simulation is based on Physical model which
are built on water and research center of power authority of Tehran province .in this study fresh water have been
circulated two types of bucket with 45 & 60 degree for outlet are used. The results show that when discharge rise
mildly. Discharge coefficient are increased as well and with 45 degree bucket the coefficient higher than 60degree
• change at end section of siphon spillway did not affect on discharge coefficient
section of spillway.
horizon large head loss (different between water level at upstream and downstream) can be created.
(Kamanbedast, A., Gholizadeh, B (2012). The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(5): 2548-2553,
http://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2012/2548-2553.pdf)
The study entitled “Hydraulic Structures” used the ogee-crested spillway, because of its superb hydraulic
characteristics, has been one of the most studied hydraulic structures. Its ability to pass flows efficiently and safely,
when properly designed, with relatively good flow measuring capabilities, has enabled engineers to use it in a wide
variety of situations. Although much is understood about the general ogee shape and its flow characteristics, it is
also understood that a deviation from the standard design parameters such as a change in upstream flow
conditions, slightly modified crest shape, or construction variances can change the flow properties. These small
changes often require engineers to evaluate the crest and determine whether or not the change or deviation will be
detrimental to the spillway’s performance. Such is the case when an updated probable maximum flood calculation
requires a spillway to pass a larger flow than it was designed to handle.
The main purpose of this study was to compare results from a physical model with that of a numerical
model for flow over an uncontrolled ogee crest. Existing USACE and USBR data have also been added as a
comparison to existing references and as a convenience to the reader. An evaluation of the pressure tap data from
the physical model indicated that 3D effects are relatively small and only influence the flow near the wall. It was
observed visually that there was a slight rise in the water surface elevation near the wall, due to the viscous effect
The study entitled “Simulation of Pizometer in Dam Siphon Spillways ” stated that Pizometric pressure in siphon
spillways is studied in the previous research. Before and even up until now, physical models are constructed in
hydraulic laboratories to study distribution of pizometric pressure in siphon spillways, but they are expensive, time-
consuming and many difficulties associated with scaling effects and measurement devices. Nowadays, using
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) codes, flow behavior in the hydraulic structures can be investigated in
reasonable time and expense. This paper describes how the kind of inlet and outlet and longitudinal profile of the
siphon spillways influences the pizometric pressure. A physical model and its several attachments plus finite
element computational fluid dynamics software, "Fluent" (ver. 6.0) is used in this research program. Findings from
physical model are compared with computational results. Ten pizometers were attached along the entire length of
the siphon spillway's physical model. Pizometric pressures were measured for different flow conditions and some
part of the gathered data entered into "Fluent" software as boundary and initial conditions. Results from several
runs of software compared with corresponding experimental data. It is shown that there is a close agreement
between physical model and "Fluent" predictions. As a result, "Fluent" has been recommended for modeling of the
pizometric pressures in the siphon spillways.
(S.H. Musavi-Jahromi, Simulation of Pizometric Pressure in Dam Siphon Spillways, Department of Hydraulic Structures,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=95XSBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA463&dq=freeflow+spillway+&ots=VanTWbg2RB&sig=rKmy3kN5Y2qm5eFQnkj43ahTyPQ
&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=freeflow%20spillway&f=true)
The study entitled “Simulation flows over an air-regulated Siphon Spillway ” stated that the air-regulated siphon
spillways are adopted on streams that are subjected to flash floods or where there is insufficient space to provide
Air- regulated
siphons are very much useful as
a means for safely disposing
off the flood water to the
downstream of the dam in the
situations where manual
interference is difficult. The present study was made to evaluate and emphasize that CFD analysis is an interesting
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Volume 15, Issue 4 Ver. V (Jul. - Aug. 2018), PP 19-25, file:///E:/CE%20411%20-
%20HYDRAULICS/Design%20Experiment/PDF/C1504051925.pdf)
The research entitled “Spillways” discuss about the siphon spillway may be constructed in the body of a
concrete dam when space is not available for an overflow spillway. It has a limited capacity. Disadvantage of
siphon spillway: A the siphon is primed the flow would result excessive vibrations in the dam body which may
cause expansion problems in the joints. There is a possibility of cavitationfor negative pressures, which is affected
by the head between upstream and downstream water levels. Repair and maintenance of siphon spillways are
difficult.
h: the elevation difference between the upstream water level and end of
(Assist. Prof. Dr. BertuğAkıntuğ (2012). SPILLWAYS. Middle East Technical University. file:///E:/CE
%20411%20-%20HYDRAULICS/Design%20Experiment/PDF/CVE471%20Lecture%20Notes
%204%20-%20Spillways.pdf)
structures” discussed the measurement of flow in river and open channel is required for irrigation management
purposes including water resources planning, pollution prevention, and, flood control. Existing method of river flow
measurements consists mainly of the velocity area method and the use of hydraulic structures like weirs and
flumes. Almost any kind of obstacle that partially restricts the flow of water in an irrigation channel can be used as a
measuring device, provided that it can be calibrated. A flow measurement structure is generally designed to act as
a control in an open channel in order to provide a unique relationship between the upstream head and the
discharge.
Following structures are commonly used for discharge measurement namely Broad Crested Weir, Crump
Weir, Radial Gate, Sluice Gate, Dam Spillway etc. Gilles Belaud (1943) has studied the contraction coefficient
under sluice gates on flat beds for both free flow and submerged conditions based on the principle of momentum
conservation, relying on an analytical determination of the pressure force exerted on the upstream face of the gate
together with the energy equation. Binne (1952) analysed twodimensional free motion of a perfect liquid under a
sluice-gate in an open horizontal channel. Bose (1989) described hydraulic theory related to hydraulic structure. He
has concluded that the major demands on hydraulic structure by providing specialized and technical knowledge on
the more common types of structures now being used throughout the world. Keller (1989) has described a
hydraulic model study of an existing sloping crest Crump weir is described. Two models of scales 1:10 and 1:3
were tested. At relatively large heads, the structure behaves as one half of a flat-V Crump weir with the same
transverse crest slope. At lower heads, the flow cross section becomes strongly nonsymmetrical with a consequent
significant decrease in the value of the discharge coefficient. The critical head at which departure from a constant
discharge coefficient commences is sensitive to the extent of upstream sedimentation in the channel. The sloping
crest Crump weir should not be used for flow measurement in a straight channel without an associated model
study or an extensive field calibration. Hudson (1990) checked the calibrations performed on the Crump weirs
do not rely solely on British Standard recommendations. For free flow, it is related to upstream depth and gate
opening, whereas for submerged flow, in addition to these parameters, it depends on tail-water depth. He
developed discharge coefficient equations for free and submerged flows along with the criterion for determination
of free and submerged flow. Hager (1992) analyzed the flow features over the broad-crested weir with vertical
upstream wall and sharp-crested corner experimentally. Chanson (1995) has concluded that Broad Crested weir
can be used for accurate measurement, more importantly he has concluded that Broad crested weir can be used
Adulaziz A. Allahamid (1997) concluded that sill shape and sill height plays an important role on the
discharge coefficient of sluice gate. JungFu Yen (2001) investigated various characteristics of a vertical sluice gate
in a rectangular flatbed channel. Gogus and Define (2006) performed a series of laboratory experiments in order to
investigate the effects of width of the lower weir crest and step height of broad-crested weirs of rectangular
compound cross section on the values of the discharge coefficient, the approach velocity coefficient, and the
modular limit.
The average value of Coefficient of Discharge for Broad Crested Weir, Crump Weir, Sluice Gate, Radial
Gate and Dam Spillway was found to be 0.44, 0.85, 0.76, 0.82 and 1.03 respectively.
Variation of with h/a had been found linear relationship in all cases.
For Broad Crested Weir and Radial Gate, ‘ ’ was almost constant with increase in h/a.
Coefficient of discharge ( ) increased with h/a in case of crump weir, Sluice Gate, Radial Gate and Dam
Spillway.
All the selected hydraulic structures showed power relationship between head and discharge.
XI. Documentation
XII. Reference
[1] Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim, Bachir Achour (2006). Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the
Creager-Ofitserov Profile - International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 33, No.5. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/ES_SS_CO.pdf
[2] Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim2 & Bachir Achour (2009). Experimental Comparative Study of Siphon Spillway and Over-Flow
Spillway - Lecturer, Research Laboratory in Applied Hydraulics, Department of Hydraulic, University of Batna, Algeria.
file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell%20Lachica/Downloads/502-1748-1-PB.pdf
[3] Amin Ghafourian and Mohd. Nordin Adlan (2012). Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections - School of
Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c433/6a74da47bff1c17dc7b7d93104623f968d20.pdf
[4] Kamanbedast, A., Gholizadeh, B (2012). The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic - Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(5): 2548-
2553, http://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2012/2548-2553.pdf
[5] Abdulaziz A. Allahamid, 1997. Coefficient of Discharge of Sluice Gate, J. King. Saud University, Eng. Science paper-1, 11 : 33-48.
[6] Bose, M. G., 1989. Hydraulic theory of various hydraulic structures- Discharge Measurement Structures, ILRI, 20, Wageningen.
XIII. Appendix
COMPUTATION:
*WITHOUT GATE
Trial 1
= 0.050 m/s
= 0.950 m/s
KPa
= 5.171 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.060 m/s
= 0.950 m/s
KPa
= 5.171 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.070 m/s
= 1.067 m/s
KPa
= 5.808 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 1.067 m/s
KPa
= 5.808 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.090 m/s
= 1.138 m/s
KPa
= 6.194 m3/hr
Trial 1
= 0.280 m/s
= 1.010 m/s
KPa
= 4.518 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.336 m/s
= 0.970 m/s
KPa
= 4.227 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.392 m/s
= 0.919 m/s
KPa
= 3.830 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 0.448 m/s
= 0.863 m/s
KPa
Trial 5
= 0.505 m/s
= 0.840 m/s
KPa
= 3.195 m3/hr
*WITH 2 OPENINGS
Trial 1
= 0.140 m/s
= 0.1.103 m/s
KPa
= 5.176 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.168 m/s
= 1.085 m/s
KPa
= 5.052 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.196 m/s
= 1.076 m/s
KPa
= 4.988 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 0.224 m/s
= 1.048 m/s
KPa
= 4.792 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.252 m/s
KPa
= 4.792 m3/hr
*WITH 3 OPENINGS
Trial 1
= 0.093 m/s
= 1.129 m/s
KPa
= 5.358 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.112 m/s
= 1.084 m/s
KPa
= 5.052 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.130 m/s
= 1.084 m/s
KPa
Trial 4
= 0.149 m/s
= 1.076 m/s
KPa
= 4.859 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.168 m/s
= 1.076 m/s
KPa
= 4.859 m3/hr