Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.

301-310 (2001) 301

HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS AND DISCHARGE CONTROL

OF SLUICE GATES

Jung-Fu Yen*
Department of Civil Engineering
Kao Yuan Institute of Technology
Kaohsiung, Taiwan 821 R.O.C.

Chih-Han Lin
Hydraulic Planning and Research
Institute WCA, MOEA,
Taichung, Taiwan 413, R.O.C.

Chang-Tai Tsai
Department of Hydraulic and Ocean Engineering
National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan 701 R.O.C.

Key Words: contraction coefficient, discharge coefficient, free flow,

submerged flow.

ABSTRACT
Vertical sluice gates are widely used for flow control in irrigation
and drainage channels. When the opening is smaller than the critical
depth, the flow immediately downstream of the gate will be
supercritical. Flows through the gate may be free or submerged de-
pending on the tailwater depth. This paper investigates various char-
acteristics of a vertical sluice gate in a rectangular flatbed channel.
Equations for discharge coefficient, dimensionless discharge, sub-
merged water depth, maximum allowable gate opening, and the distin-
guishing condition separating free flow and submerged flow were de-
rived and plotted with consideration of flow contraction at the gate.
The distinguishing condition was found to be a function of the con-
traction coefficient, upstream water depth and tailwater depth, and was
verified through laboratory experiments.

I. INTRODUCTION are critical to effective gate operations. Therefore,

Submerged gates have long been used for flow
control in open channels. They come in various types
such as vertical sluice gates, radial gates, rolling
gates, planar sluice gates, etc. (Chow 1959;
Henderson 1966; Eei 1975; Subramanya 1982; Tsai
1990; Chaudhry 1993). Flow conditions near the gate
hydraulic characteristics of the gates should be thor-
oughly investigated to establish suitable operational
parameters.
The flow downstream of a gate may be either
free or submerged as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively. Pertinent hydraulic characteristics have
been previously investigated through laboratory

*Correspondence addressee
302 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001)
Fig. 1 Sketch of free flow
experiments and numerical modeling by a number of
researchers. Previous laboratory experiments focused
primarily on water surface profile, discharge
coefficient, velocity profile, bed pressure distribution
and surface eddies (Rajaratnam 1977; Rajaratnam
and Humphries 1982). On the other hand, previous
numerical investigations attempted to determine dis-
charge coefficients, velocity profiles, and bed pres-
sure distributions using finite difference, finite
element, or perturbation schemes, in conjunction with
numerical models derived from potential flow theory
(Fangmeler and Strelkoff 1968; Chung 1972; Issacs
1977). To account for nonlinearity of flow boundary
near a gate, numerical models using boundary-fitted
coordinates systems have also been developed
(Thompson 1980; Thompson and Warsi 1982;
Masliyah et al. 1985).
Among the pertinent hydraulic characteristics,
discharge coefficient is the most important parameter.
For example, discharge through a veritcal sluice gate
is often expressed as Eq. (1) involving the discharge
coefficient (Henry 1950; Tsai 1990; Swamee 1992).
Q = C d Lb 2gy 1
In the equation, Q is discharge, C d is the dis-
charge coefficient, L and b are width and opening of
the gate, respectively, g is gravity acceleration and
y 1 is the upstream water depth. Study results of dis-
charge coefficients for both free flow and submerged
flow by Henry (1950) were discussed by Rajaratnam
and Subramanya (1967). Swamee (1992) later used
the data to develop a formula for discharge coeffi-
cient through regression analysis. He also established
the distinguishing condition separating free flow and
submerged flow, as shown in Eqs. (2) and (3), in terms
of gate opening, the upstream water depth y 1, and the
tail water depth y 3.
y
Free flow y 1≥0.81y3 ( 3 )0.72
b Cc
y C b
Submerged flow y3<y 1<0.81y3 ( 3 )0.72
b y1
Fig. 2 Sketch of submerged flow
Since the gates are used for flow regulation, the
maximum gate opening for controllable discharge
should be determined to aid in operation. In addition,
occurrence of flow contraction immediately down-
stream of a gate implies that proper discharge for-
mula and distinguishing conditions (between free and
submerged flows) should include the contraction co-
efficient C c . They are investigated in the present
study.
II. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
1. Discharge Coefficient
The contraction coefficient is defined as the ra-
tio of the water depth at the vena contracta, y2, which
is the minimum water depth in the downstream
channel, to the gate opening, as shown in Eq. (4).
y2
Cc = (4)
b
The coefficient is related to the gate opening and
the upstream specific energy E 1, which may be ex-
(1) pressed as Q 2/2gL 2 y 1 2 (Chow 1959; Rajaratnam and
Humphries 1982). For a sharp-edged vertical sluice
gate, Cc ranges from 0.598~0.611 based on theoreti-
cal reasoning. It, however, was found to vary in the
range of 0.61~0.74 and increase with b/E 1 from ex-
perimental results. For engineering applications, Cc
may be taken as 0.61 as a practical value with ad-
equate precision (Henderson 1966). Under a free flow
condition, a hydraulic jump will occur to facilitate
the supercritical flow immediately downstream of the
gate to merge with the tailwater further downstream.
Since the energy loss between the upstream section
and the vena contracta is negligible, the discharge
coefficient for free flow can be derived from the con-
tinuity and energy equations for the upstream section
and the vena contracta, and is shown in Eq. (5).
(2)
Cd = (5)
(3) 1+ c
 J.F. Yen et al.: Hydraulic Characteristics and Discharge Control of Sluice Gates 303

Fig. 3 Graph of relative discharge coefficient

Fig. 5 Graph of downstream froude number at the vena contracta

y1 y
where Φ = , Ψ= 1
y3 C cb

C d /C c is plotted against y 1 /C cb with y 3 /y 1 as a

third parameter for Eqs.(5) and (6) in Fig. 3. It can
be seen from Fig. 3 that, in addition to the gate open-
ing and the contraction coefficient, the discharge co-
efficient for free flow is affected by the upstream
water depth, while the discharge coefficient for sub-
merged flow is further affected by the tail water depth.

2. Dimensionless Discharge

In engineering designs, the upstream and down-

Fig. 4 Graph of upstream froude number
stream water depths may be determined as long as
the discharge is specified. Also, for given widths and
gate openings, dimensionless discharge formulas
When the tailwater depth is greater than the con- can be derived from the discharge equation with
jugate water depth at the vena contracta, the flow from consideration of the contraction effect. Figs. 4 and 5
the gate is drowned and forms a submerged jump, and, show the variation of dimensionless discharge repre-
therefore, is classified as a submerged flow. Energy sented by upstream Froude number F 1 and down-
loss for a submerged flow mainly occurs below the stream Froude number F 2 at the vena contracta,
vena contracta, i.e., between section II and section respectively, which are in turn expressed in Eqs. (7)
III. Energy loss between the gate and the vena and (8).
contracta is relatively small and may be ignored. Dis-
charge coefficients for submerged flows may be de- Q C y
F1 = = 2 d ( 1 )– 1 (7)
rived from the energy equation for sections I and II L gy 1 3 C c C cb
and the momentum equation for sections II and III
(Henderson 1966). The resulting formula is shown Q C d y 1 1/2
F2 = = 2 ( ) (8)
in Eq. (6) L g(C cb) 3 C c C cb

1
2
[(Ψ – 1)2 + 2(Φ – 1)] + [(Ψ – 1)2 + 2(Φ – 1)]2 – (Ψ 2 – 1)2[1 – ( 1 )2]
Φ
Cd = Cc (6)
(Ψ – 1 )
Ψ
304 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001)

Fig. 7 Graph of relative discharge coefficient in another form

Fig. 6 Graph of submerged water depth

4. Maximum Allowable Gate Opening

3. Submerged Water Depth
Under free flow condition, the flow upstream
In submerged flow, the area immediately down-
of the gate is subcritical, while the flow downstream
stream of the gate becomes stagnant with zero net
is supercritical (Henderson 1966). When the gate
motion in any direction. King (1963) estimated the
opening is equal to or greater than the critical water
submerged water depth y using the momentum equa-
depth y c, no hydraulic jump will occur and free flow
tion without considering the contraction effect. This
will not develop. Under that condition, the gate will
paper incorporates the contraction coefficient in de-
not be able to regulate the flow, other than inducing
riving the ratio of the submerged water depth to the
some surface disturbances. Critical depth for a rect-
upstream depth. The resulting equation is shown in
angular channel can be expressed as Eq. (11), or as
Eq. (9).
Eq. (12) by further incorporating Eqs. (1) and (5) in
y 2(Ψ – Φ) Eq. (11).
2 (Ψ – Φ) – 1]2 – [1 – ( 1 )2]
y1 = 2
+ [ 2 Φ
Ψ –1 Ψ –1 Q 2 1/3
(9) yc = ( ) (11)
gL 2
In the equation, Φ and Ψ are as those previously de- 2C c2b 2y 1 1/3
fined for Eq. (6). yc = ( ) (12)
Cb
Since y/y 1 can be rearragned as (y/y 3 )×(y 3/y 1 ), 1 + yc
1
the ratio between submerged water depth and the tail
water depth may be expressed in terms of y 3/y 1 and Critical water depth may be considered as the
y 1/C cb as shown in Fig. 6. maximum controllable gate opening for free flow, and
With known submerged water depths, the dis- is denoted by bmax. Eq. (12) may be converted to Eq.
charge coefficient for submerged flow can be derived (13) for use in solving for b max as shown in Eq. (14).
from the momentum equation for the upstream sec-
tion and the vena contracta, incorporating the defini- C cb max C cb max 2 3
tion in Eq. (4). y 1 + ( y 1 ) = 2C c (13)
C d /C c , can be obtained from both y 1 /C c b and
y/C c b using Eq. (10) for submerged flow, or from y1 2C c
= (14)
y 1/Ccb alone using Eq. (5) for free flow, as shown in b max – 1 + 1 + 8C 3
c
Fig. 7.
Likewise, using Eqs. (5), (7), (8) and (14), the
y maximum upstream Froude number (F 1 ) max and the
1– y
Cd = Cc 1
(10) minimum downstream Froude number (F 2) min at the
C cb 2 vena contracta can be expressed as Eqs. (15) and (16),
1–( y )
1 respectively.
 J.F. Yen et al.: Hydraulic Characteristics and Discharge Control of Sluice Gates
(F 1)max = ( – 1 + 1 + 8C c3 ) × (1 + 1 + 8C c3 )– 1/2
(F 2)min = C c– 3/2
Taking C c as 0.61, it can be shown that b max=
0 . 5 5 6 y 1, y 1/ C cb max= 2 . 9 5 , ( F 1) max= 0 . 4 1 4 , a n d
(F2 ) min=2.099.
5. Distinguishing Condition
In estimating the discharge through the gate, an
appropriate discharge equation should be selected
based on whether it is a free flow or a submerged
flow. The distinguishing condition between free flow
and submerged flow can be determined from hydrau-
lic characteristics of the gate. When supercritical flow
occurs immediately below the gate, a hydraulic jump
will form further downstream and the discharge is de-
termined by the upstream water depth and the gate
opening. However, when the submerged flow occurs,
the discharge is also influenced by the tailwater
depth. The discharge decreases with higher tailwater
depth, and either the upstream water depth or the
gate opening must be increased to keep the same
discharge.
Theoretically, lower upstream water depth
comes along with higher downstream water depth in
a hydraulic jump (Chow 1959; Henderson 1966; Eei
1975). If the tailwater depth is higher than the con-
jugate water depth at the vena contracta, a submerged
jump will emerge to form a submerged flow
Apparently, the distinguishing condition between free
flow and submerged flow can be judged from the ra-
tio of the conjugate water depth at the vena contracta
to the tailwater depth.
For a rectangular flatbed channel, the relation-
ship between the upstream water depth y u and the
downstream water depth y d in a hydraulic jump is
expressed in Eq. (17) (Henderson 1966).
yd 1 2 deep glass water tank. During the experiments, wa-
y u = 2 ( 1 + 8F u – 1)
in which Fu is the upstream Froude number. Assum-
ing the hydraulic jump occurs right at the vena
contracta, i.e., y u=C cb, the downstream water depth
after the hydraulic jump will be the maximum tail
water depth (y 3 ) max of a free flow. Eqs. (5) and (8)
can be combined to express Fu as shown in Eq. (18).
Substituting F u in Eq. (18) into Eq. (17), the maxi-
mum tail water depth allowable for free flow may be
expressed as Eq. (19).
Fu = 2 (18)
C cb C cb
y 1 (1 + y 1 )
305
(15)
(16)
Fig. 8. Theoretical distinguishing condition
(y 3)max 1 16
= 1+ –1 (19)
C cb 2 C cb C cb
y1 (1 + y1 )
(y 3 ) max /C cb is plotted against y 1 /C cb following
Eq. (19) in Fig. 8, while (y 3 ) max /b is plotted against
y 1/b in Fig. 11. For a specified value of y 1/C cb, the
maximum allowable tailwater depth for free flow is
the same as the minimum allowable tailwater depth
for submerged flow. Therefore, the minimum sub-
merged water depth for submerged flow can be de-
termined in combination with y 3/Ccb calculated from
Eqs. (9) and (19), shown as the solid line in Fig. 8.
III. HYDRAULIC EXPERIMENTS
Hydraulic experiments were conducted in the
laboratory of the Department of Hydraulics and Ocean
Engineering at Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan. The
model consisted of a 9.2 m long, 0.4 m wide, 0.6 m
(17)
ter was pumped from a container to a head water tank
through a connecting pipe. Valves were installed
along the pipe for regulating discharge. Discharge
was measured using a venturi flowmeter with ±1%
accuracy. Water entered the tank by passing through
laminar screens. An adjustable tail panel was used
to set the desired tailwater depth. The vertical sluice
gate was installed in the test section of the tank. A
quarter-circle steel plate was welded to the lower end
of the gate to reinforce its structure and stabilize the
flow. The upstream and downstream water depths
were measured using point gauges with 0.1mm
accuracy. The channel bed was kept horizontal dur-
ing the experiments. Layout for the experiments and
gate lip are shown in Figs. 9a and 9b, respectively.
306 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001)
Fig. 9 (a)Sketch of layout for experiments; (b) Sketch of gate lip
The experiments involved determinations of the
contraction coefficient and the distinguishing
condition.
1. Contraction Coefficient
Because the derived equation for the distinguish-
ing condition is related to the contraction coefficient
and the gate model is different from a vertical sharp-
edged sluice gate, ten runs on the contraction coeffi-
cient were first conducted. Based on the experimen-
tal discharge we made an approximate estimate by
Eq. (14), and assumed the gate opening for control-
lable flow range is limited within 1~5 cm. Thereby
it was set to 2.5 cm and 3.5 cm respectively. The
water depth at the vena contracta was determined to
be the minimum downstream water depth occuring at
a distance within 1 to 1.2 times the gate opening. The
experimental results with Benjamin’s (1956) are plot-
ted in Figs.10a and 10b.
It can be seen from Fig. 10a that, for a given
gate opening, contraction coefficient increases with
decreasing upstream specific energy, while for a
given upstream specific energy, it increases with
Fig. 10 (a)Graph of contraction coefficient under different gate
openings; (b) Graph of dimensionless maximum allow-
able gate opening
increasing gate opening. The above characteristics
have been previously observed and explained in terms
of boundary layer development by Henderson (1966).
However, it seems that different gate lips (such as
rounded-edged and sharp-edged) affect the contrac-
tion coefficient more than the opening effect. In one
words, the lip shape is regarded as much the more
important variable. Fig. 10b shows that gate open-
ings in the experiments were smaller than the maxi-
mum allowable values and were able to establish
controllable gate flows .
2. Distinguishing Condition
The tailwater for a submerged flow will sub-
merge the vena contracta and affect the upstream
water depth. In the experiments, with a specified gate
opening, the upstream water depth for free flow was
first measured. The tailwater was then gradually
rasied until the vena contracta was drowned. The
corresponding tailwater depth was taken as the dis-
tinguishing condition separating free flow and
 J.F. Yen et al.: Hydraulic Characteristics and Discharge Control of Sluice Gates
Fig. 11 Comparison between theoretical and experimental distin-
guishing conditions
submerged flow. Since drowning of the vena
contracta could not be visually identified with good
precison, a criterion was established for this purpose:
the flow was considered to have transferred from free
flow to submerged flow when a more than 3% change
in upstream water depth (ie, ∆y 1 /y 1 ) was first
encountered. With the gate opening set beteen 1cm
and 5cm in the present experiments, the normalized
upstream water depths y 1 /b were observed to range
from 2.8 to 14.2 and the normalized maximum tail-
water depth (y3)max/b from 1.9 to 5.6. Thirty-two runs
on identifying the distinguishing condition were
performed.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The experimental results are plotted in Fig. 11
along with Eqs. (2) and (3) by Swamee, Rajartnam’s
equation (Rajaratnam and Subramanya 1967), and
Eq. (19) from theoretical consideration with contrac-
tion coefficient taken at 0.65. The above three curves
exhibit similar tendencies. From this figure, the ex-
perimental value is close to the derived theoretical
one, its deviation between -2.5%~3.2% when (y 1/b)
is higher than 3.0. The variation is about -0.37%
on the average. For y1/b lower than 3.0, the observed
data are below the predicted values. Based on
Eq. (14), y 1 /b shall be theoretically larger than 1.8
for a free flow if Cc is taken at 0.61. For y1/b smaller
than a certain value, the flow can be easily submerged
and fail to control the discharge. Therefore, the
present study focused mainly on the conditions with
higher upstream water depth, i.e. y 1 /b larger than
3.0. In addition, the data from the present experi-
ments show a better agreement with the theoretical
equation than those by Swamee and Rajartnam. This
307
is due to the gate hydraulics, the experimental
observations, and the contraction coefficients, as dis-
cussed below:
Gate hydraulics and experimental observations:
When the upstream water depth is lower than the gate
opening, the gate will not affect the flow at all.
Moreover, when the gate opening is higher than the
critical depth of the channel, the gate will fail to con-
trol the flow and will only cause minor disturbances
on the water surface.
However, when the gate opening is slightly
lower than the critical depth, the contraction coeffi-
cient and the distinguishing condition will play sig-
nificant roles in the flow development. Since the
distinguishing condition was established based on
drowning of the vena contracta and the variation of
the upstream water depth in the experiments, it is rea-
sonable that the measured maximum allowable water
depths were greater than the theoretical values.
Contraction coefficient: the contraction coeffi-
cient is not constant for all cases and, therefore, af-
fects the results. The experiments at Tepako Canal
and Arapun Spillway showed that Cc was in the range
of 0.648~0.724 for radial sluice gates (Webby 1999).
In addition, the experiments by Benjamin showed that
C c ranged from 0.60~0.75 and decreased gradually
with decreasing b/E 1 to approach a value around
0.61. Since the lower end of the gate model was in-
stalled with a quarter-circle steel plate, it would form
a flow pattern similar to that of a tainter gate. As
indicated by Henderson (1966), the contraction coef-
ficient for a tainter gate is larger than 0.61. Since the
arc plate directs the flow in a more streamlined
fashion, it would raise the water depth at the vena
contracta and result in a greater contraction
coefficient. Fig. 10a shows that C c ranges from 0.65
~ 0.75 for the present experiment. It also confirms
Benjamin’s conclusion that Cc increases with increas-
ing (b/E 1 ). The contraction coefficient has a mini-
mum value of 0.65 for the present experiments,
slightly higher than the usual value of 0.61, due to
the type of gate used in the present experiments. This
explains why the deviation of present data from
Swamee’s theoretical curve becomes greater for a
higher contraction coefficient.. Development of the
boundary layer and the contraction effect are the pri-
mary causes of the difference between the experimen-
tal and the theoretical values (Henderson 1966; Eei
1975).
Figure 12 shows the experimental data for the
distinguishing condition along with the theoretical
curves with C c taken at 0.61, 0.65 and 0.75,
respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the theo-
retical curve with Cc=0.65 has the best agreement with
the experimental data. The agreement with a larger
contraction coefficient is due to the type of gate used
308 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001)
Fig. 12 Comparison between theoretical and experimental distin-
guishing conditions (C c=0.61, 0.65, 0.75)
in the present experiments as explained above. The
effect of the contraction coefficient on the distinguish-
ing condition increases with increasing y 1/b, causing
the three theoretical curves to diverge. Most of the
data from the present experiments fall between the
curves for Cc=0.61 and Cc=0.75 with y1/b greater than
3.0. This indicates that the distinguishing condition
is affected by the contraction coefficient. Figs. 11
and 12 shows that the distinguishing condition can
be accurately predicted using the theoretical equation
derived in this study.
Since the equations for discharge coefficient
and distinguishing condition derived in the present
study include contraction coefficient, the equations
can be reasonably applied to any other gate types
as long as appropriate contraction coefficients are
used. This reflects the importance of contraction co-
efficient and is one of the main focuses of the present
study.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Because sluice gates are widely used in open
channels for flow control, an understanding of their
hydraulic characteristics is essential. Depending on
gate opening, the flow downstream of the gate may
be classified as free flow or submerged flow. Based
on the present experimental results for a vertical
sluice gate in a rectangular flatbed channel, the fol-
lowing conclusions may be made:
First, theoretical equations for discharge coef-
ficient and maximum allowable gate opening for
sluice gates were derived with the inclusion of con-
traction coefficient. With a given gate opening, gate
width, contraction coefficient, and upstream and
downstream water depths, discharge through the gate
can be determined from the equations or their graphic
representations. For a submerged flow, the discharge
can also be estimated using the submerged water
depth formula.
Secondly, dimensionless discharge equations for
sluice gates are presented in terms of upstream and
downstream water depths. For a given discharge, the
upstream and downstream water depths can be easily
determined from the appropriate formulas.
Finally, an equation for determining the distin-
guishing condition was developed in the study. The
equation is expressed in terms of the gate opening,
contraction coefficient, and upstream and downstream
water depths, based on hydraulic jump theory and as-
sociated hydraulic characteristics. The equation was
verified by the data from the present experiments and
previous studies by others. Since the contraction
effect varies with different gate types, the distinguish-
ing condition should be determined using an appro-
priate contraction coefficient for the gate.
Based on the above results, flow conditions for
sluice gates can be determined with better accurracy
using an appropriate contraction coefficient for the
gate. This will improve design and operation of sluice
gates.
Contraction coefficient has significant effects on
determining hydraulic characteristics of sluice gates.
Although there are theoretical equations capable of
predicting contraction coefficients for high upstream
water depths, further research is needed for predict-
ing the characteristics for lower upstream water
depths.
NOMENCLATURE
b opening of the gate (L)
bmax maximum allowable gate opening for free
flow (L)
Cc contraction coefficient
Cd discharge coefficient
E1 upstream specific energy (L)
F1 upstream Froude number
(F 1) max maximum upstream Froude number of gate
F2 downstream Froude number at the vena
contracta
(F 2) min minimum downstream Froude number at the
vena contracta
Fu supercritical upstream Froude number be-
fore the hydraulic jump
g gravity acceleration (LT−2)
L width of the gate (L)
Q discharge of the gate (L3/T)
y1 upstream water depth of the gate (L)
y2 water depth at the vena contracta (L)
y3 tail water depth (L)
(y 3) max maximum tail water depth for free flow (L)
 J.F. Yen et al.: Hydraulic Characteristics and Discharge Control of Sluice Gates 309

yc critical water depth (L) Flow under Sluice Gates,” Journal of Hydraulic
yd downstream water depth after the hydrau- Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 6, pp. 922-933.
lic jump (L) 12. Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K., 1967, “Flow
yu upstream water depth before the hydraulic Equations for the Sluice Gate,” Journal of
jump (L) Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE,
∆y 1 variation of upstream water depth (L) Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 167-186.
y 13. Rajaratnam, N., 1977, “Free Flow Immediately
Φ dimensionless parameter = y 1
3 Below Submerged Sluice Gates,” Journal of Hy-
y1 draulic Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 345-
Ψ dimensionless parameter =
C cb 351.
14. Rajaratnam, N., and Humphries, J.A., 1982, “Free
REFERENCES
Flow Upstream of Vertical Sluice Gates,” Jour-
nal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.
1. Brooke Benjamin T., 1956, “On the Flow in Chan-
427-437.
nels When Rigid Obstacles Are Placed in the
15. Subramanya, K., 1982, “Flow in Open
Stream,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 1, part
Channels,” National Book Trust, India.
2, pp. 227.
16. Swamee, P.K., 1992, “Sluice-Gate Discharge
2. Chaudhry, M.H., 1993, Open Channel Flow,
Equations” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 56-60.
3. Chow, V.T., 1959, “Open Channels Hydraulics,”
17. Thompson, J.F., 1980, “Numerical Solution of
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, N.Y.
Flow Problems Using Body-Fitted Coordinate
4. Chung, Y.C., 1972, “Solution of Flow under
Systems,” Computational Fluid Dynamics, W.
Sluice Gates,” Journal of Engineering Mechan-
Kollmann, ed., Hemisphere.
ics Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 121-140.
18. Thompson, J.F., and Warsi, Z.U.A., 1982,
5. Eei, J., 1975, Open Channel Hydraulics, Vol. 2,
“Boundary-Fitted Coordinate Systems for Nu-
(in Chinese) Tung Hwa Publishing Co., Taiwan,
merical Solution of Partial Differential Equations-
R.O.C.
A Review,” Journal of Computational Physics,
6. Fangmeler, D.D., and Strelkoff, T.S., 1968, “So-
Vol. 47, pp. 1-108.
lution for Gravity Flow under a Sluice Gate,”
19. Tsai, C.T., 1990, “Drainage Analysis of the Gate
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division,
in Bu-Dai Salt Collecting Yard during Sarah
ASCE, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 153-176.
Typhoon,” (in Chinese) Department of Hydrau-
7. Henderson, F.M., 1966, Open Channel Flow, The
lic And Ocean Engineering, National Cheng Kung
Macmillan Co., New York, N.Y.
University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
8. Henry, H.R., 1950, “Discussion of ‘Diffusion of
20. Webby, M.G., 1999, “Discussion of ‘Irrotational
Submerged Jets,’ by M. L. Albertson, Y. B. Dai,
Flow and Real Fluid Effects under Planar Sluice
R. A. Jensen, and H. Rouse,” Transactions, ASCE,
Gates,’ Discussion by J. S. Montes,” Journal of
Vol. 115, pp. 687-694.
Hydraulic Division, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp.
9. Isaacs, L.T., 1977, “Numerical Solution for Flow
210-212.
under Sluice Gates,” Journal of Hydraulic
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 473-481.
Manuscript Received: Mar. 24, 1999
10. King, H.W., 1963, Handbook of Hydraulics, 5th
Revision Received: Aug. 21, 2000
Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
and Accepted: Sep. 25, 2000
11. Masliyah, J.H., Nandakumar, K., Hemphill, F.,
and Fung, L., 1985, “Body-Fitted Coordinates for
310 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001)

下射式水門流量控制與水理特性之研究
顏榮甫

高苑技術學院土木工程系

林志翰

經濟部水利規劃試驗所副工程司

蔡長泰

國立成功大學水利及海洋工程學系

摘　要

下射式水門為渠道中常用於控制流量之水工結構物。由於水門上、下游之
流況分別為超臨界流及亞臨界流，故水門可控制流量之條件為水門開度須小於
臨界水深，此開度為水門脈縮係數及上游水深之函數。在水門可控制流量之條
件下，下游之出流現象視其尾水水深之大小，分為自由出流及潛沒出流兩種流
況，其分界標準之尾水水深與水門開度、脈縮係數及上游水深有關。本文由水
門之水理現象，採水躍理論、能量方程式及動量方程式推導得到自由出流及潛
沒出流之流量係數、分界標準之尾水水深及潛沒出流時鄰近水門下游面水深等
水門相關重要參數之計算公式及參考曲線，並以水工試驗證明自由出流及潛沒
出流流況分界條件之適用性。

關鍵詞：自由出流，潛沒出流，脈縮係數，流量係數。