CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Lab Report-1

Muhammad Ahmad Mustafa

Dated:9/9/2019
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Objective:
The objective of the laboratory exercise was to demonstrate the use of the Specific Energy Diagram for a
contraction followed by an expansion and to measure the expansion loss coefficient. Furthermore, it
highlights that the Specific Energy, which is a function of depth and, how head losses are incorporated.

Equipment:
In order to execute this exercise, a glass flume of 15 in width has been used. Whereas to Fiber Glass
molding with smooth gradual transition was adjusted inside the flume to make the flow contracted and
the expanded. The contracted width of the flume was 4.5 in. to measure the water depth at three cross
sections i.e. initial, contracted and expanded were taken by Vernier Scale through point gauge. The water
discharge was fixed and pumped back to a constant head over tank once it flows through the flume. The
discharge, Q, was measured from magnetic flow meter at the inlet pipe.

Method and Measurements:

A constant Q measured through a magnetic flow meter with error ±0.003 cfs is released in the flume. The
B1 = B3 is the width of the flume i.e. 15 inches. Whereas the contracted width is B2 = 4.5 inches as shown

Transition Arrangement

B3 B1

Flow
B2

Cross Section 3 Cross Section 2 Cross Section 1

Figure 1 Plan View of Flume Arrangement
in the Figure 1. The water depth, y, were measured three time to accommodate the random error at each
cross section. The readings were taken through Vernier point gauge with ±0.01 cm accuracy whereas the
random error was calculated later in the calculation and the same was propagated to see the error margin
the final solution. After taking readings from each cross section the Zero Scale was adjusted to zero for
the next one as a good practice. The point Gauge readings were taken by just touching the point on the
surface of water flow.

In total 10 cases were run, in a set of 5 for each different Q which means there were total 2 sets. Each set
consist of 5 cases in which 4 cases were taken in a subcritical flow condition for upstream and
downstream. Moreover, one was taken as flow goes from subcritical to super critical at downstream. The
different flow depths were achieved by regulating the tailgate and maintaining different water depths at
the tail side of the flume.

The assumptions included in the experiment and methodology are as under:

 It is Steady Uniform flow.

 No Slope
 Velocity Correction factor ( α = 1) is unity.
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Maths:
Specific Energy is a measure of the total energy per unit weight measured relative to the channel bottom.
Mathematically, it is represented as under.

𝛼𝑉 2
𝐸 =𝑦+ (1)
2𝑔
𝑄 𝑄 𝑞
Whereas 𝑉 = 𝐴 = 𝑦𝑏 = 𝑦 (2)

Replacing equation (2) in equation (1) and assuming α = 1.

𝐸 = 𝑦 + 𝑞 2 /2𝑔𝑦 2
According to the laws of the conservation of the energy

𝐸1 = 𝐸2 = 𝐸3

𝑞12 𝑞22 𝑞12

𝑦1 + = 𝑦2 + − 𝐻𝐿 (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟.) = 𝑦3 + − 𝐻𝐿 (𝐸𝑥𝑝)
2𝑔𝑦12 2𝑔𝑦22 2𝑔𝑦32

That means 𝐸1 − 𝐸2 = 𝐻𝐿 (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

and 𝐸2 − 𝐸3 = 𝐻𝐿 (𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

where E1 and respective subscripts shows the energy at the respective cross sections.

whereas Froud number is a ratio of inertial force to the gravitational force which is given as under:
𝑉 𝑞
𝑭= =
√𝑔𝑦 𝑔1/2 𝑦 3/2

Critical Velocity is the velocity corresponding to the critical depth and calculated as under

𝑉𝑐 = √𝑔𝑦

If a flow is flowing with Froud number less than unity it is under sub critical where potential head is the
primary cause of flow whereas if the Froud number is greater than one, then the primary cause is the
velocity head. This is summarized as follow.
Table 1 Types of Flow and Characteristics

Froud No. Water Depth Velocity Type of Flow Flow Cause

Greater Than 1 y<yc V>Vc Super Critical Velocity Head
Equals to 0ne y= yc V=Vc Critical Least Energy head
Less than one y>yc V<Vc Sub-Critical Potential Head

Specific Energy Curve

For the value of the specific energy other than at the critical point for a constant discharge, there are two
water depths.
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

 One is greater than critical depth.

 Other is Less than critical depth
These two depths for a given specific energy are termed as alternate depths and the decision o
the final solution is depending upon the type of flow encountered through Froud Number.

= Emin

Figure 2 Specific Energy Diagram

Expansion Loss Coefficient (KL) and Head Loss Graphically:

The Figure 3 shows that the subcritical flow as Case 3, the q1 with initial depth of y11 undergoes contraction
to depth y12 corresponding to the discharge intensity of q2 and the corresponding energy decrease from
E11 to E12 is due to head-loss from contraction which is quite low. However, as the flow undergoes an
expansion, to the q1 discharge intensity, it gains back the depth y13 but less than initial depth as some of
the head is lost to the expansion.

In the Case 5 there, isn’t any choking but as the discharge intensity increase from q1 to q2, the flows
change it type from sub-critical to the critical depth and then changes itself to the supercritical were the
depth decrease and velocity increases. However, we can still see that the contraction head loss is quite
low, and the expansion losses are significant. In the ideal case the line should have been straight, just
touching the Emin of q2 specific energy curve.

Once the head loss is obtained by the experiment, the Expansion Loss Co-efficient is calculated
theoretically and from lab results to get an idea. The general energy equation for contraction and
expansion is given by as under
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

𝑄2 𝑄2 1 𝑄2
𝑦1 + = ∆𝑧 + 𝑦2 + + 𝐾𝐿 | |
2𝑔𝐴12 2𝑔𝐴22 𝐴12 − 𝐴22 2𝑔

y11
y13
y12 Specific Energy q1 cfs
Specific Energy q2 cfs
y

y=E
y = 3/2 E

yc2 Case 3
Case 5 (SuperCritical)

yc1

EC1 E E11
EC2 E13 E12

Figure 3 Specific Energy in Contraction and Expansion

Henderson (1966) has shown from a combined energy and momentum analysis that the expression for
the head loss in an abrupt open channel expansion is given by (referred as 2.14 in the Table 2 & Table 3):

𝑉12 𝑏1 2 2𝑭12 𝑏13 (𝑏2 − 𝑏1 )

𝐻𝐿 = [(1 − ) + ]
2𝑔 𝑏2 𝑏24

The same shall be calculated and divided by the difference in the velocity head to get KL.
𝐻𝐿
𝐾𝐿 =
𝑉12 𝑉22
|2𝑔 − 2𝑔 |

This calculated value of the KL shall be compared with the experimental value calculated as under by using
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

𝐸2 −𝐸3
𝐻𝐿 (𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛) = 2
𝑉 𝑉2
| 1− 2|
2𝑔 2𝑔

Where as eq 2.15 in the Table 2 & Table 3 is as under which is used for very wide channel, River (F < 0.5):
𝑏2
1−
𝑏3
𝐾𝐿 =
𝑏
1+ 2
𝑏3

Error Propagation Theory:

Sources of error may be classified into three basic types:

 scale error: This is the Smallest possible reading possible on the apparatus under use.
 random error: Small fluctuations in the readings mostly connected with the observer
 systematic error: Faulty instruments or the method of the execution.
In the experiment the scale error and the systematic error were reduced by zero checking of caliper before
taking reading on a new cross section. The error in the Q measurement through magnetic flux reader were
already established as ±0.003 cfs. Whereas, the scale error in the Vernier point gauge is ±0.01 cm and the
random error was found out by using the standard deviation method.

Simple mean of the three values of y at single cross section was used and the error was estimated to be
the standard deviation in the single reading divided by the square root of the number of observations.

𝑛 2
(𝑦𝑖𝑋𝑠𝑒𝑐 − 𝑦𝑎𝑣𝑔 )
𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑑𝑦 = √∑
𝑛−1
𝑖=1

𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑑𝑦
𝑆𝑦 = 1
𝑛2
𝑆𝑄 = ±0.003 (𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛)

As per to the error propagation theory:

2 Y 2 2 Y 2 2 Y 2 2
S eY = [ ] S e1 + [ ] S e2 + . . . [ ] S en
 X1  X2  Xn
Where S eY is the standard deviation of the distribution of random errors in Y and S ei is a similar quantity
for Xi which are the independent variables. The theory shall be applied in the analysis and each step is
shown as under:

Error in the q :
𝑄 𝜕𝑞 1
𝑞= 𝑏
𝑆𝑞 = (𝜕𝑄)𝑆𝑄 = (𝑏) 𝑆𝑄

Error in the E :
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

𝜕𝐸 𝑞2 𝜕𝐸 𝑞
𝐸 = 𝑦 + 𝑞 2 /2𝑔𝑦 2 𝜕𝑦
= 1 − 𝑔𝑦3 𝜕𝑞
= 𝑔𝑦2

2 2 2
𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝐸 𝑞2 𝑞 2
𝑆𝐸 = √( ∗ 𝑆𝑦 ) + ( ∗ 𝑆𝑞 ) = √((1 − 3 ) ∗ 𝑆𝑦 ) + ( 2 ∗ 𝑆𝑞 )
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑞 𝑔𝑦 𝑔𝑦

Error in the V:
𝑞 𝜕𝑉 1 𝜕𝑉 𝑞
𝑉=𝑦 𝜕𝑞
=𝑦 𝜕𝑦
= 𝑦2

𝜕𝑉 2𝜕𝑉 1 2 𝑞 2 𝑆 2 𝑆 2
𝑞 𝑦
𝑆𝑉 = √(𝜕𝑞 ∗ 𝑆𝑞 ) + (𝜕𝑦 ∗ 𝑆𝑦 ) = √(𝑦 ∗ 𝑆𝑞 ) + (𝑦2 ∗ 𝑆𝑦 ) = 𝑉√( 𝑞 ) + ( 𝑦 )

Error in the ΔE:

𝜕∆𝐸 𝜕∆𝐸
∆𝐸 = 𝐸2 − 𝐸3 𝜕𝐸1
=1 𝜕𝐸2
=1 𝑆∆𝐸 = √𝑆𝐸1 2 + 𝑆𝐸2 2

Error in the ΔV:

𝑉32 𝑉22 𝜕∆𝑉 𝑉1 𝜕∆𝑉 𝑉2 𝑉 𝑉 2 2

∆𝑉 = − = = 𝑆∆𝑉 = √( 1 ∗ 𝑆𝑉1 ) + ( 2 ∗ 𝑆𝑉2 )
2𝑔 2𝑔 𝜕𝑉1 𝑔 𝜕𝑉2 𝑔 𝑔 𝑔

Error in the HL

∆𝐸 𝑆∆𝐸 2 𝑆∆𝑉 2
𝐻𝐿 = 𝑆𝐻𝐿 = 𝐻𝐿 √( ) +( )
∆𝑉 𝐸 𝑉

Results and Discussion:

It is evident that the flow behaved as predicted through the energy equation when passed through
transition. It can be seen from both the Figure 4 and Figure 6 as the tail water is decreased the depth
decreases and velocity head increases in the upstream as well as the downstream side. In all the first four
cases (subcritical cases), the head loses in expansion are greater than the contraction.

But as the Tail water level is lowered to full bottom level, the contracted part of the flume takes the depth
of the critical depth and once it took the critical depth at the contracted section, expansion part flows
with the supercritical flow and thus the water depth decreases significantly. Ideally it should be a straight
vertical line, but it shows that the contraction loses are quite low and the expansion loses due to flow
separation is quite high thus instead of coming down straight, it diverges to decreasing energy side. This
behavior again was noted in the both sets of experiment.

The values of expansion head loss co-efficient calculated from the Set 1 has been compared in the Figure
5 and it shows a deviation of 11% in the readings which is acceptable. The theoretical value Calculated
from Henderson formula comes out to be 0.54 whereas the formula for wide river gives a value of 0.538
which are quite in agreement to each other. Whereas the lab results come out to be 0.41 ± 11%. However,
it should be noted that as the flow changes to super critical i.e. F>0.5, it gives erroneous results. The
detailed calculation can be seen in the Table 2 Calculations involving Experiment Set 1 (Q = 0.488 Cfs).
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Set 2 has been compared in the Figure 7 and it shows a deviation of 8% in the readings which is more
acceptable as compared to the first set. The theoretical value Calculated from Henderson formula comes
out to be 0.54 (almost same as set 1) whereas the formula for wide river gives a value of 0.538 which are
quite in agreement to each other. Whereas the lab results come out to be 0.443 ± 8%. Same erroneous
results were achieved in the super critical case. The detailed calculation can be seen in the Table 3
Calculations involving Experiment Set 2 (Q = 0.669 Cfs).
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics
Table 2 Calculations involving Experiment Set 1 (Q = 0.488 Cfs)

Set No. 1 (Q = 0.488 Cfs)

HL
g = 32.2 y Error HL Cont HL Exp error Error KExp Error KExp KExp
Error b Q Error in q Error Yc Error Ec Error F E Error V ΔV Exp
in V (Lab) (Lab) in H in ΔV (Lab) in KExp (2.15) (2.14)
y1 y2 y3 yavg in yavg Q in q in Yc in Ec in E (2.14)
X-Sec. 1 22.09 22.19 22.05 0.725 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.111 0.730 0.001 0.538 0.003
Case 1
X-Sec. 2 20.35 20.4 20.45 0.669 0.001 0.38 0.488 0.003 1.301 0.008 0.0175 0.0015 0.026 0.002 0.419 0.728 0.003 1.944 0.012 0.0019 0.0229 0.0026 0.0539 0.0007 0.426 0.049 0.538 30.2 0.541
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 21.31 21.35 21.37 0.700 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.117 0.705 0.001 0.558 0.003 (negligible) 11% 1% 12%

X-Sec. 1 20.87 20.83 20.9 0.685 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.121 0.690 0.001 0.570 0.004
Case 2
X-Sec. 2 18.86 18.79 18.76 0.617 0.001 0.38 0.488 0.003 1.301 0.008 0.0175 0.0015 0.026 0.002 0.473 0.686 0.003 2.109 0.013 0.0036 0.0249 0.0030 0.0636 0.0009 0.391 0.048 0.538 35.7 0.542
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 19.99 20.05 19.91 0.656 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.130 0.661 0.001 0.595 0.004 (negligible) 12% 1% 12%

X-Sec. 1 19.42 19.34 19.56 0.638 0.002 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.135 0.644 0.002 0.612 0.004
Case 3
X-Sec. 2 16.71 16.67 16.72 0.548 0.001 0.38 0.488 0.003 1.301 0.008 0.0175 0.0015 0.026 0.002 0.565 0.635 0.003 2.375 0.015 0.0081 0.0353 0.0032 0.0809 0.0011 0.436 0.040 0.538 45.6 0.544
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 18.15 18.04 18.08 0.594 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.150 0.600 0.001 0.658 0.004 (negligible) 9% 1% 9%

X-Sec. 1 18.85 18.76 18.82 0.617 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.142 0.623 0.001 0.633 0.004
Case 4
X-Sec. 2 15.67 15.59 15.54 0.512 0.001 0.38 0.488 0.003 1.301 0.008 0.0175 0.0015 0.026 0.002 0.626 0.612 0.003 2.543 0.017 0.0111 0.0337 0.0034 0.0931 0.0013 0.362 0.037 0.538 52.5 0.544
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 17.45 17.42 17.36 0.571 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.159 0.578 0.001 0.683 0.004 (negligible) 10% 1% 10%

Case 5 X-Sec. 1 17.29 17.26 17.32 0.567 0.001 1.25 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.161 0.575 0.001 0.688 0.004
(Super X-Sec. 2 12.8 12.84 12.97 0.422 0.002 0.38 0.488 0.003 1.301 0.008 0.0175 0.0015 0.026 0.002 0.836 0.570 0.004 3.082 0.023 0.0049 0.079 0.0086 -0.268 0.0093 -0.29 -0.034 0.538 79.0 -0.28
Crit) 1.25
X-Sec. 3 2.27 2.29 2.34 0.075 0.001 0.488 0.003 0.390 0.002 0.0016 0.0007 0.002 0.001 3.319 0.491 0.008 5.174 0.057 (negligible) 11% -3% 11%

Table 3 Calculations involving Experiment Set 2 (Q = 0.669 Cfs)

Set No. 2 (Q = 0.669 Cfs)

g = 32.2 y HL
Error in HL Cont HL Exp error Error KExp Error KExp KExp
Error b Q Error in q Error Yc Error Ec Error F E Error V ΔV Exp
V (Lab) (Lab) in H in ΔV (Lab) in KExp (2.15) (2.14)
y1 y2 y3 yavg in yavg Q in q in Yc in Ec in E (2.14)
X-Sec. 1 24.11 23.92 23.97 0.787 0.002 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.135 0.795 0.002 0.680 0.003
Case 1
X-Sec. 2 20.42 20.56 20.61 0.674 0.002 0.38 0.669 0.003 1.784 0.008 0.0329 0.0014 0.049 0.002 0.569 0.782 0.003 2.649 0.014 0.0121 0.0408 0.0037 0.1007 0.0012 0.406 0.037 0.538 56.7 0.543
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 22.40 22.23 22.43 0.733 0.002 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.150 0.742 0.002 0.730 0.004 (negligible) 9% 1% 9%

X-Sec. 1 22.72 22.73 22.80 0.746 0.001 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.146 0.754 0.001 0.717 0.003
Case 2
X-Sec. 2 18.72 18.70 18.68 0.614 0.000 0.38 0.669 0.003 1.784 0.008 0.0329 0.0014 0.049 0.002 0.654 0.745 0.003 2.908 0.013 0.0096 0.0576 0.0037 0.1216 0.0012 0.474 0.031 0.538 68.9 0.547
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 20.57 20.61 20.77 0.677 0.002 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.169 0.687 0.002 0.790 0.004 (negligible) 6% 1% 6%

X-Sec. 1 23.22 23.12 23.08 0.759 0.001 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.143 0.767 0.001 0.705 0.003
Case 3
X-Sec. 2 19.25 19.21 19.23 0.631 0.000 0.38 0.669 0.003 1.784 0.008 0.0329 0.0014 0.049 0.002 0.627 0.755 0.003 2.828 0.013 0.0118 0.0420 0.0038 0.1152 0.0011 0.365 0.033 0.538 65.0 0.544
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 21.32 21.53 21.53 0.704 0.002 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.160 0.713 0.002 0.760 0.004 (negligible) 9% 1% 9%

X-Sec. 1 24.55 24.33 24.59 0.803 0.003 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.131 0.810 0.003 0.666 0.004
Case 4
X-Sec. 2 21.40 21.38 21.42 0.702 0.000 0.38 0.669 0.003 1.784 0.008 0.0329 0.0014 0.049 0.002 0.534 0.802 0.003 2.541 0.011 0.0080 0.0464 0.0028 0.0923 0.0009 0.502 0.031 0.538 52.1 0.544
(Sub Crit)
X-Sec. 3 22.84 22.80 22.76 0.748 0.001 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.146 0.756 0.001 0.715 0.003 (negligible) 6% 1% 6%

Case 5 X-Sec. 1 21.38 21.34 21.48 0.702 0.001 1.25 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 0.160 0.711 0.001 0.762 0.004
(Super X-Sec. 2 15.64 15.72 15.83 0.516 0.002 0.38 0.669 0.003 1.784 0.008 0.0329 0.0014 0.049 0.002 0.848 0.702 0.004 3.457 0.020 0.0095 0.1026 0.0062 -0.3196 0.0065 -0.32 -0.020 0.538 99.5 -0.30
Crit) 1.25
X-Sec. 3 2.84 2.86 2.88 0.094 0.000 0.669 0.003 0.535 0.002 0.0030 0.0006 0.004 0.001 3.281 0.599 0.005 5.704 0.034 (negligible) 6% -2% 6%
 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Specific Energy (Q = 0.488 (±0.003) cfs )

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

Specific Energy q = 0.39 cfs

0.6 Specific Energy q = 1.30 cfs
y=E
0.5 y = 3/2 E
y

Case 1

0.4 Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
0.3
Case 5 (SuperCritical)

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
E

Figure 4 Results of Set 1

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
1 2 3 4

Lab Results Wide River Henderson Formula

Figure 5 Comparison of K in Set 1

 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

Specific Energy (Q = 0.669 (±0.003) cfs )

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

Case 1
0.600 Case 2
Case 3
0.500 Case 4
y

Case 5 (SuperCritical)

0.400 Specific Energy q = 0.559 cfs

Specific Energy q = 1.784 cfs
y = 3/2 E
0.300
y=E

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
E

Figure 6 Results of Set 2

Comparison of KL
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
1 2 3 4

Lab Result for Wide Rivers Handerson Formula

Figure 7 Comparison of K in Set 2

 CEE-6281 Open Channel Hydraulics

References:

Taylor, J.R., An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements,
2nd Edition, University Science Books, Sausalito, California, 1996.

Beckwith, T.G., Buck, N.L., and Marangoni, R.D., Mechanical Measurements, Addison-Wesley, 1982.