Questions:

1. What are the limitations of the theory? Compare the experimental results to the theory by
calculating the percentage of error.

The experimental results show significant deviations from the theoretical values,
with percentage errors ranging from approximately 66.55% to 68.33%. This suggests
substantial limitations in the theoretical model when applied to real-world conditions, as
noted in the limitations section. The consistently high percentage errors across all data
points indicate that the theoretical model might not adequately account for all factors
influencing the flow rate in the experimental setup

2. Why would you expect wider variation of Cd values at lower flow rates?

Wider variations in the coefficient of discharge (Cd) values are expected at lower
flow rates due to the sensitivity of flow measurements to small changes in conditions. At
lower flow rates, the water moves more slowly through the weir, making it more
susceptible to external factors that can affect the measurements. Even small disturbances,
such as slight changes in water levels or variations in the flow conditions, can have a
larger impact on the accuracy of the measurements. This increased sensitivity means that
minor errors or fluctuations in the experimental setup become more significant when the
flow rate is low.

Imagine trying to balance a pencil on its tip – the slower the pencil moves, the
more sensitive it is to even the tiniest nudge. Similarly, at lower flow rates, the
measurements of water flow over the weir are more delicate and prone to being
influenced by small changes. These factors can lead to wider variations in the coefficient
of discharge values because the measurements are more easily affected by external
factors when the flow rate is slower.

3. Compare the results for Cd of the weirs utilized in this experiment with those you may
find in a reliable source (e.g., textbooks). Include in your report a copy of the tables or
graphs you have used for textbook values of Cd.
 The experimental coefficients of discharge (Cd) for both rectangular and
triangular weirs in our study were found to be significantly lower than the standard values
reported in literature. Specifically, our values for the rectangular weir ranged from 0.318
to 0.335 and for the triangular weir from 0.310 to 0.316, whereas standard values are
typically around 0.60 to 0.62 for rectangular weirs and 0.58 to 0.62 for triangular weirs.
This discrepancy may be due to differences in flow conditions, experimental setup,
measurement inaccuracies, or variations in weir conditions, such as edge sharpness.

● Reliable sources for these standard values include:

》Engineering LibreTexts
》 The Engineering ToolBox
》 Civil Engineering Portal
● Summary of Results for Cd Values of Weirs
》Experimental Cd Values: (Rectangular Weir)
- 0.3238, 0.3186, 0.3346, 0.3203, 0.3169, 0.3273
》Experimental Cd Values: (Triangular Notch)
- 0.3161, 0.3122, 0.3142, 0.3103, 0.3161, 0.3122
》Standard Cd Values from Literature: (Rectangular Weir)
- Range: 0.60 – 0.62
》Standard Cd Values from Literature: (Triangular Weir)
- Range: 0.58 – 0.62

● Comparison:
The experimental Cd values for both the rectangular and triangular weirs are
significantly lower than the standard values from reliable sources.
● Overall analysis:
The differences between the experimental and textbook Cd values highlight the
importance of accurate experimental setup and measurement techniques. This
 discrepancy may also suggest areas for further investigation to align experimental
conditions more closely with idealized conditions used in standard references.
● Sources:
》 Engineering LibreTexts on flow over weir
》 The Engineering ToolBox on V-notch and rectangular weirs
》 Civil Engineering Portalon weir flow measurement
4. Discuss your observations and any source of errors in calculation of Cd

The experimental coefficients of discharge (Cd) for both rectangular and

triangular weirs were significantly lower than the standard values reported in literature.
Specifically, the Cd values for the rectangular weir ranged from 0.318 to 0.335, while
standard values are typically around 0.60 to 0.62. For the triangular weir, the
experimental values ranged from 0.310 to 0.316, compared to standard values of 0.58 to
0.62. This notable difference suggests that various factors could have influenced the
experimental results, leading to lower Cd values than expected.
Several potential sources of error may have contributed to the discrepancies in
Cd values. Measurement inaccuracies in both head (h) and flow rate (Q) are critical.
Small errors in reading the head or flow rate, due to equipment calibration issues or
human error, can significantly impact the calculated Cd. Additionally, non-uniform flow
conditions such as turbulence, air entrainment, or uneven velocity distribution upstream
of the weir can affect accuracy. The physical condition of the weir, including edge
sharpness and surface roughness, is another critical factor. A worn or improperly
constructed weir edge or surface fouling can alter flow patterns, affecting the Cd.
Differences in the experimental setup, such as scale and alignment, can also contribute.
Laboratory conditions may not perfectly replicate ideal textbook conditions, leading to
variations. Finally, environmental factors like temperature changes can affect fluid
properties, influencing the discharge coefficient.
The observed discrepancies between experimental and standard Cd values likely
result from a combination of measurement inaccuracies, deviations in flow conditions,
and differences in the physical setup and condition of the weir. Addressing these potential
sources of error, by ensuring precise measurement techniques, ideal flow conditions, and
maintaining the physical integrity of the weir, is crucial for obtaining accurate and
reliable Cd values. By refining these aspects, future experiments may yield results that
better align with standard values.