Discharge Characteristics

of Embankment-Shaped Weirs

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1617-A

Prepared in cooperation with the

Georgia Institute of Technology
Discharge Characteristics
of Embankment-Shaped Weirs
By CARL E. KINDSVATER

STUDIES OF FLOW OF WATER OVER WEIRS AND DAMS

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1617-A

Prepared in cooperation with the

Georgia Institute of Technology

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C., 20402
 CONTENTS
Page
Abstract_ _______________________________________________________ Al
Introduction. _____________________________________________________ 1
Purpose._ ____________________________________________________ 1
History of the investigation--__________________________________ 2
Acknowledgments _____________________________________________ 3
Review of the literature _______________________________________ 4
Description and analysis of the problem._____________________________ 4
Nature of the problem__ ______________________________________ 4
Flow patterns.-_______________________________________________ 5
Nomenclature.__ ______________________________________________ 8
Dimensional analysis.-___-__-___________-______---_______-__--- 9
Free-flow discharge equations ___________________________________ 14
Effect of boundary resistance ___________________________________ 15
Submerged flow_________-___________-________-__-_____-____-_- 18
Laboratory investigation ___________________________________________ 19
Experimental equipment_______________________________________ 19
General arrangement________________________________.______ 19
Flume____________________________________________________ 21
Embankment models.-_____________________________________ 21
Discharge measurements___________________________________ 22
Piezometric-head and profile measurements ___________________ 24
Velocity measurements.-------------------.---------------- 28
Scope of embankment design variations__________________________ 32
Significance of roughness variations-_____________________________ 33
Influence of embankment form and roughness. ______._._---_--_- --._---_ 34
Objective._ ___________________________________________________ 34
Analysis of results_______________________--________-__-_------_ 35
Coefficient of discharge for free flow________-_________-__--- 35
Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow.__________-____--- 39
Incipient submergence_____-________-____________-_-_------ 45
Free-flow transition range_____-__-___--___________----_^-_- 51
Depth at crown line for free flow_ __________________________ 54
Summary and evaluation.______________________________________ 58
Influence of the boundary layer on free-flow characteristics------------ 62
Objective.. _-__________________________________________ 62
Definition of 5 e and X--___________________-_-__--_____-__------ 63
Boundary layers in accelerated motion___________________________ 64
Boundary-layer measurements_______________-__-___------------ 66
Purpose and scope._____________-__-__________-_-___--__-- 66
Summary of results-_________ ___________________-----__-- 67
Computation of C based on boundary-layer measurements. _________ 74
Modified discharge equation. _________._________-______-_---__-- 76
Influence of the sidewall boundary layer._____________-__-_----_-- 77
General solution for -<,________________________________-_----_-- 79
Computation of C for the prototype __-_______-____-_--_-__------ 86
Conclusions._ _____________________________________________________ 87
References cited---_-______-_________________________-__-_--------- 88
Experimental data____________________-________-_______-__---_--_-- 89
ni
IV CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
FIGURE 1. Typical water-surface profiles in 1:6 scale model___________ A7
2. Three significant flow patterns in l:6-scale model._________ 8
3. Changing flow pattern with rising tail water _ _______________ 10
4. Changing flow pattern with falling tailwater______________ 12
5. Principal variables needed to describe flow over an embank-
ment. _______________________________________________ 13
6. Partially established boundary-layer flow__________________ 16
7. Arrangement of experimental equipment __________________ 20
8. View of l:9-scale model embankment in test flume_________ 21
9. Basic embankment design______________________-----_-_- 23
10. Special design variations (models K, L, and M) ____________ 24
11. Model AC with birdshot roughness--___---------------_-- 25
12. Weighing-tank system for discharge measurements________ 26
13. Point gage and pitot-static tube._________________________ 27
14. Manometer for the pitot-static tube- _________--__----_-_- 29
15. Stagnation tube for boundary-layer velocity measurements-_ 30
16. Manometer for the stagnation tube_____________________ 31
17. Coefficient of discharge for free flow; basic design, model A__ 35
18. Coefficient of discharge for free flow; smooth surfaced models. 37
19. Coefficient of discharge for free flow, rough-surfaced models.- 38
20. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of h/P,
with t/h as the submergence ratio___-__--_-----_-------- 40
21. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of h/P,
with t/Hi as the submergence ratio_------_----_---_---_- 41
22. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; basic design,
model A-_________________-____-__-_-_--._----------- 42
23. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of pave-
ment cross slope, Sv ---------------------------------- 43
24. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of
shoulder slope, St ----------------------------------- 44
25. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of
special design variations------------------------------- 45
26. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of
screen-wire roughness on all surfaces____-_________-__--- 46
27. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of bird-
shot roughness on shoulders and embankment slopes--___- 46
28. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of bird-
shot roughness on all surfaces_______________-___---_--- 47
29. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; in-
fluence of h/P, with t/h as the submergence ratio--------- 48
30. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of h/P, with tjHi as the submergence ratio-_____-____---- 49
31. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; basic
design, model A_______________-______-__-_----------- 50
32. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of pavement cross slope, Sv ---------------------------- 50
33. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of shoulder slope, Ss ------------------------------------ 51
34. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of special design variations.____________-_---__------- 52
 CONTENTS V

Page
FIGTJBE 35. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of screen-wire roughness on all surfaces-_________________ A53
36. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of birdshot roughness on shoulder and embankment slopes.- 54
37. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence
of birdshot roughness on all surfaces___-________________ 55
38. Depth at crown line for free flow; basic design, model A_ _____ 55
39. Depth at crown line for free flow; smooth-surfaced models.__ 56
40. Depth at crown line for free flow; rough-surfaced models----- 57
41. Summary of the coefficient of discharge for free flow________ 59
42. Summary of the coefficient of discharge for submerged flow__ 60
43. Summary of incipient submergence and free-flow transition
range--_-________-_______________-___________________ 61
44. Velocity distribution in boundary layer on upstream side of
roadway; basic design, typical discharge _________________ 68
45. Velocity distribution in boundary layer on upstream side of
roadway; rounded shoulder, typical discharge__-_-______- 69
46. Boundary-layer velocity distribution near crown line (station
1.65), models.A-l and AA-1_____________________- 70
47. Boundary-layer velocity distribution near crown line (station
1.65), models K-l and KA_______________________ 71
.48. Boundary layer near crown line (station 1.65)______________ 72
49. Boundary layer on upstream side of roadway for a typical
discharge.___________________________________________ 73
50. Values of (5 a X) from boundary-layer velocity measurements. 75
51. Values of C computed from equation 20 and figure 50_______ 76
52. Values of 5 Q from boundary-layer velocity measurements---- 78
53. Values of C computed from equation 47 and figure 52_______ 78
54. Velocity outside the boundary layer, model of basic design. _ 81
55. Velocity outside the boundary layer, model with rounded
upstream shoulder.___________________________________ 82
56. Values of 5 Q computed from equation 52 compared with
experimental values from figure 49__-_________-_-------- 85
57. Computed prototype-values and measured model values of C,
smooth-surfaced embankments.-,----------------------- 86

TABLES

Page
TABLE 1. Summary of designs tested, l:9-scale models.------------- A33
2. Scope of boundary-layer tests made by Davidian___________ 67
3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics--____-_-___-_ 89
4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution,--. 106
 STUDIES OF FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS
DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS OF EMBANK-
MENT-SHAPED WEIRS

By CARL.E. KINDSVATER*

ABSTRACT
, An embankment-shaped weir is an embankment overtopped by flood waters.
Among the engineering problems frequently resulting from this occurrence is
the need to compute the peak discharge from postflood iield observations. The
research described in this, report was concerned with the theoretical and exper-
imental-bases for the computation procedure.
The research had two main objectives. One was to determine the relationship
. between embankment form and roughness and -.some of the more important
-discharge- characteristics. - The second was to define, theoretically and experi-
-mentally, the.relationship between free-flow discharge and the boundary layer
on the-roadway. The first-objective was accomplished with the experimental
determination of coefficients of discharge and other significant flow character-
istics for a variety of boundary and flow conditions. The second objective was
-accomplished with the development and experimental verification of a discharge
equation which involved the boundary-layer displacement thickness. This phase
of the research included "a general investigation of boundary-layer-growth on
the roadway.
It-is-concluded that both free- and submerged-flow "^discharge-are virtually
independent of the influence of embankment shape-and relative height. The
influence of boundary resistance is appreciable only for smaller heads. The
most practical solution for discharge is one which is based on the simple weir
equation and experimentally determined coefficients. A completely analytical
equation of discharge is impractical.
- The-report contains the results of 936 experiments on the discharge char-
acteristics of 17 different models, plus 106 boundary-layer velocity traverses
on 4 different-models. The data are summarized in-both graphical and tabular
form.
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The subject of this report is the highway embankment, which be-
comes a weir when it is overtopped by flood waters. Several problems
which result from this occurrence are of interest to hydraulic engi-
neers as well .as highway engineers. One of these is the problem of
destructive erosion. Another is the - backwater which results from
the obstruction of the flood channel. Still another is the problem- of
determining the magnitude of the flood discharge. The last-named
-problem is the one which especially-concerns the Geological Survey.
- *Regents Professor of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.; consultant to
the U.S. Geological Survey.
Al
A2 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

The Geological Survey's interest in the hydraulics of embankments

is related to one of the so-called indirect methods of discharge de-
termination. Indirect methods involve the use of computation pro-
cedures in lieu of discharge or velocity-area measurements. One such
method is based on the computation of the discharge capacity of
spillways and weirs. The highway embankment belongs in this cate-
gory because it is 'a form of broad-crested weir.
The common ingredients in all indirect methods of discharge deter-
mination are postflood field measurements and observations. Thus,
the accuracy of the discharge determination depends on the accuracy
and sufficiency of the field data as well as the computation procedure.
As it pertains to the work of the Geological Survey, this investigation
was concerned primarily with the principles involved in the compu-
tation procedure. The primary objective was an understanding of
the mechanics of the flow over some typical highway embankments.
A natural consequence of the investigation was the development of
equations and coefficients which can be used to compute the discharge
for a wide range of embankment forms and flow conditions.
HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATION
The first of a series of related research projects on the hydraulics
of embankments was begun at the Georgia Institute of Technology
in 1947. On that occasion the Institute cooperated with the Georgia
State Highway Department in a brief, exploratory study of a 1:6-
scale model of a typical two-lane highway embankment. Laboratory
tests were performed by R. L. Chapman, >a State Highway Depart-
ment engineer. From the results of the investigation, preliminary
conclusions were drawn regarding the nature and scope of the problem.
Tests on a rebuilt version of the 1:6-scale model were made in 1948
by C. J. Chi and H. R. Henry, graduate students in the School of
Civil Engineering. A major contribution of this investigation was
a comprehensive record of water-surface profiles, velocity measure-
ments, and photographs required to describe the external flow
characteristics.
In 1949, tests on a 1:12-scale model were made by H. Y. Lu, another
graduate student. The purpose of his investigation was to explore the
scale effect related to the formation of the boundary layer on the
surface of the model. The kind of data recorded was similar to that
obtained from the previous tests on a 1: 6-scale models. The investiga-
tion was terminated before completion.
After a lapse of several years, embankment research was reactivated
in 1954 by Sigurdsson.1 In addition to summarizing and reanalyzing
1 Sigurdsson, Gunnar, 1956, Discharge characteristics of an embankment shaped weir: Georgia Inst.
Technology, Master's degree thesis, 83 p., 38 figs.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A3

the results of the previous investigations, Sigurdsson made additional

tests on a 1:9-scale model. The purpose of his tests was to explore more
critically the boundary-layer influence on free-flow discharge
characteristics.
Subsequently, from 1956 to 1958, two more laboratory studies of the
1:9-scale model were made. One of these, by Davidian,2 was especially
concerned with the relationship between the free-flow coefficient of
discharge and the boundary layer on the roadway. The other, by
Prawel,3 , was principally concerned with the influence of changes in
boundary form on significant flow characteristics. Finally, in 1959,
some tests on the influence of surface roughness and some verification
tests were made by W. W. Emmett.
For most of the work described above, one embankment form was
used as the basis of design for all the models. In one of the recent
investigations, the basic form was systematically varied in order to
determine the separate influence of some of the more critical geometric
characteristics. For most of the tests, the model surfaces were essen-
tially smooth. For some tests, however, the model surfaces were
artificially roughened. The test procedure, scope and kind of recorded
data, and experimental techniques varied with the objectives of the
individual investigators.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The laboratory investigations were performed in the Hydraulics
Laboratory, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Ga. The experimental data which are used in this
report were obtained primarily from the investigations during 1948
and 1956-59. All of the data accumulated since 1947, whether used
herein or not, contributed'to the experience and understanding upon
which the conclusions are based.
The principal investigators were Chapman, Chi, Henry, Lu, Si-
gurdsson, Prawel, Davidian, and Emmett. Chapman's work on the
initial^ exploratory study was contributed by the Georgia State High-
way Department. Chi, Henry, and Lu were graduate research assist-
ants employed by the Institute. Sigurdsson's work was supported by
the American Society of Civil Engineers through its J. Waldo Smith
Hydraulic Fellowship. Prawel's research was partly supported by
the Geological Survey. Emmett's work was supported by the Geologi-
cal Survey and the Institute. For the purpose of preparing this report,
the author was employed as a consultant by the Geological Survey.

8 Davidian, Jacob, 1959, Influence of the boundary layer on embankment-shaped weirs: Georgia Inst.
Technology, Master's degree thesis, 97 p., 38 figs.
3 Prawel, S. P., Jr., 1959, Discharge characteristics of an embankment-shaped weir: Georgia Inst. Tech-
nology, Master's degree thesis, 58 p., 38 figs.
690-195 O - 64 - 2
A4 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

Homer Bates, Laboratory Technician in the School of Civil Engi-

neering, constructed special instruments and assisted in the construc-
tion of the models. A complete photographic record of the 1948 tests
was made by the author with the assistance of Chi. Most of the data
used in the report were computed from original laboratory data by
Emmett, who also assisted in the preparation of illustrations. John
Shen, Geological Survey, and E. R. Holley, Jr., graduate student,
assisted with the computations. All the work was done under the
direction of the author.
Three Master's degree theses (Sigurdsson, 1956; Davidian, 1959;
Prawel, 1959) have been based on parts of the investigation. A
summary of certain results was contained in a previous publication
(Kindsvater, 1957).
BEVIEW OF THE LITEBATUBE
A paper by Yarnell and Nagler (1930) was the only research publi-
cation on embankment hydraulics available to the investigators. The
research described in that paper was concerned primarily with railroad
embankments. The basic embankment was flattopped, with a short,
flat berm on both the upstream and downstream sides. The embank-
ment slopes were covered with grouted gravel, and the top surface
contained timber ties embedded in osrravel ballast. The test data con-
sisted of information needed to compute discharge coefficients for
both free and submerged flow. Water-surface levels were measured
with staff gages, and the discharge was measured with a full-width
thin-plate weir. The results of a few tests made without rails on the
ties have been used widely to describe the flow over highway
embankments.
Because the highway embankment is classified as a form of broad-
crested weir, the literature in this field is pertinent. A compilation
and analysis of the most important information on broad-crested weirs
is contained in a report by Tracy (1957). Most of the published work
on the subject is concerned with the experimental determination of
the discharge coefficient for smooth, level weirs. Very little is known
about the influence of the boundary layer on the crest, separation at
the upstream edge of the crest, boundary roughness, or variations in
boundary form.
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
NATUBE OF THE PBOBLEM
Theoretical analyses of the embankment-shaped weir are compli-
cated by a combination of effects related to boundary resistance and
boundary form. Experimental studies are complicated by the occur-
rence of several significantly different flow patterns. Both analysis
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A5

and experiment are complicated by characteristic difficulties associated

with free-surface phenomena.
Typical flow patterns ior an embankment-shaped weir involve
boundary-layer growth under conditions of acceleration and separa-
tion, nonhydrostatic pressure distribution due to curvilinearity, and
an unstable transition between a boundary flow and a separation flow
on the downstream slope. It is evident that a general analytical solu-
tion for discharge is impossible. Nevertheless,.existing theory can be
used to .explain some, of the different flow regimes. Experiment,
guided by dimensional reasoning, must be depended upon to fix the
limits of the flow regimes and evaluate the coefficients needed for prac-
tical solutions.
FLOW PATTERNS
An important contribution of the 1948 tests was a classification of
the different flow patterns which characterize the flow of water over
highway embankments. Doubtless the most significant classification
is that which distinguishes between free and submerged flow. For
the low-tailwater condition known as free flow, critical-flow control
occurs on the roadway and the discharge is determined by the up-
stream head. At higher tailwater levels, when the depth of flow over
the roadway is everywhere greater than the critical depth, the dis-
charge is controlled by the capacity of the tailwater channel as well as
the head. Under conditions of tailwater control, the flow is said to be
submerged. With a rising tailwater level, the change from free flow
to submerged flow occurs rather abruptly. The flow pattern antece-
dent to the change is described as incipient submergence.
Free flow is subclassified into plunging flow and surface flow.
Plunging flow occurs when the jet plunges under the tailwater surface,
producing a submerged hydraulic jump on the downstream slope.
Surface flow occurs when the jet separates from the roadway surface
at the downstream shoulder and "rides" over the tailwater surface.
Whereas free flow can be either a plunging or a surface flow, sub-
merged flow is always a surface flow.
The free-flow transition range is the range of tailwater levels within
which a given discharge can produce either a plunging flow or a sur-
face flow, depending on the antecedent conditions. Thus, if the tail-
water is initially low and the flow plunging, this pattern persists as the
tailwater level rises until it reaches the upper limit of the transition
range, whereupon the plunging flow changes abruptly to a surface
flow. However, if the tailwater is initially high and the flow is a sur-
face flow, this pattern persists as the tailwater drops until it reaches
the lower limit of the transition range, whereupon the flow pattern
changes abruptly to plunging flow. The stability or persistence of
A6 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIES

the flow patterns within the transition range is related to the inertia
of the large, horizontal-axis rollers which occur on the downstream
side of the embankment.
The tailwater-level limits of the transition range were recorded
for all the models investigated. In addition to their general signifi-
cance in the description of the characteristic flow pattern, the transi-
tion-range data are also significant in determining the safety of the
structure against destructive erosion. This conclusion is based on the
observation that surface flows are doubtless less erosive than plunging
flows. Although the safety of flooded highway embankments was not
a primary objective of the investigation, this information is believed
to provide an important contribution to erosion prevention and
control.
Figure 1 shows water-surface profiles for typical tests on the 1:6-
scale model. Attention is called to the fact that the profiles are plotted
to a distorted scale. Thus, vertical dimensions are shown 2.5 times
larger than equivalent horizontal dimensions. For 3 different dis-
charges (3.01, 14.7, and 25.0 cfs per ft in the prototype), the profiles
illustrate the major flow-pattern classifications described above. Only
1 of the 2 possible flow patterns is shown at each of the free-flow
transition limits. Profile a is a typical example of submerged flow,
whereas e is an example of free, plunging flow at a tailwater level con-
siderably below the lower limit of the transition range. Characteristic
standing-wave patterns mark incipient submergence and the upper
limit of the transition range. The theoretical value of the critical
depth and its intercept on each of the free-flow profiles is shown on the
figure. It is apparent that the depth at the crown line is very nearly
equal to the theoretical critical depth for all discharges.
Figure 2 shows photographs of the three intermediate classifications
of flow illustrated on figure 1. The discharge shown in figure 2 is
20.4 cfs per ft in the prototype.
Figures 3 and 4 show closeup photographs of the flow in the vicinity
of the downstream shoulder for the conditions illustrated in figure Iff.
The discharge is constant at 14.T cfs per ft (prototype). The photo-
graphs shown in figure 3 represent a rising-tailwater sequence, be-
ginning with a free, plunging flow. Figure 4 shows a falling-tailwater
sequence, beginning with submerged flow. In all of the photogaphs,
the flow is from left to right. The streaks shown in some of the
photographs were made with an injection of potassium permanganate
solution.
Attention is called to the similarity between figures 3B and 4Z>, 3^7
and 4^7, and 3Z> and 4ff. It is observed that the flow patterns which
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A7
x a Submerged flow Oe Free flow (plunging)
Db Incipient submergence Note: Data taken from tests on
A c Upper limit of transition l:6-scale model with P=10.5
range (surface flow) feet. All discharges and dimen-
sions shown as in prototype
+d Lower limit of transition
range (plunging flow)
Headwater level Tailwater level
I

-2 es.

-4

Headwater level Tailwater level

e-SL

Headwater level Tailwater level

-40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40

Distance, in feet

FIOUEE 1. Typical water-surface profiles in l:6-scale model.

A8 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

A. Free, surface flow at the upper limit of the transition range

B. Surface flow, incipient submergence

C. Free, plunging flow at the lower limit of the transition range

FIGURE 2. Three significant flow patterns in the l:6-scale model. The discharge is equivalent to 20.4 cfs
per ft in the prototype.

appear to be almost identical in surface and streak-line configuration

actually correspond to a difference in tailwater elevation of approxi-
mately 1.5 ft in the prototype. This difference is the difference in
tailwater levels at the upper and lower limits of the free-flow transi-
tion range for this discharge.
NOMENCLATURE
The principal variables needed to describe the flow of water over a
highway embankment are shown in figure 5. The selection of the
variables is based on the following assumptions : The cross section is
symmetrical about the vertical centerline; the embankment surface,
shoulder surface, and each half of the pavement surface are planes;
the crown line is horizontal, straight, and perpendicular to the flow;
 DISCHARGE OVER .EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A9

the channel bottoms upstream and downstream from the embankment

are -horizontal, plane, smooth surfaces, and both are at the same eleva-
tion. Under these conditions, the variables needed to describe the
embankment are the total height of the embankment (P) , the width
of the shoulder (L8 ) , the width of the pavement (Lp) , the total width
of the roadway, including the pavement and two shoulders (Z), the
embankment slope ($<>), the shoulder slope ($«), and the pavement
cross slope (Sp) .
The variables needed to describe the one-dimensional flow charac-
teristics are the discharge per foot of length of embankment (q) , the
average velocity in a channel section upstream from the embankment
(Fi), the piezometric head of the upstream water surface measured
with respect to the level of the crown line (A), the average total
energy head referred to the crown level (#1), the depth of flow at
the crown line (2/0), and the piezometric head of the downstream
water surface referred to the crown level (t).
In addition to the variables: shown on figure 5, quantities needed to
describe the flow over an embankment include the absolute roughness
of the boundary surfaces (A?), the specific weight of the fluid (y),
the density of the fluid (p) , and the dynamic viscosity of the fluid (//,) .
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Because some of the quantities defined above are not independent,
they can be excluded from a general expression of the discharge func-
tion. For example, Z, F1} and H± can be excluded because their mean-
ings can be described in terms of two or more of the other variables
listed. An expression which includes the -minimum number of inde-
pendent variables required to describe the one-dimensional discharge
characteristics is
/(P, Ls, Lp , Se, Ss, Sp, q, h, t, k, y, p, /x)=0. (1)
From- this array, 10 -independent ratios can be formed, as follows :
Ls ~ k h t q

The next to the last ratio in equation 2 is equivalent to a coefficient

of discharge, <7i, and the last ratio is the Reynolds number, R. Select-
.ing the coefficient of discharge as the dependent ratio,

Cl=f (pM7 S" Ss ' Sp' h' Tv I' R) (3)

In the experimental investigation, LS/LP and 'Se were constants.

Consequently, for the purposes of this report, both ratios can be
omitted from the functional relation for the coefficient of discharge.
A10

A. Free, plunging flow

B. Free, plunging flow at the upper limit of the transition range

C. Upper limit of the transition range, changing from plunging to surface flow
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS All

D. Free, surface flow at the upper limit of the transition range

E. Free, surface flow between the upper limit and incipient submergence

F. Surface flow, incipient submergence

690-195 O - 64 - 3
A12 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

A. Submerged, surface flow

B. Free, surface flow at the lower limit of the transition range

C. Lower limit of the transition range, changing from surface flow to plunging flow

D. Free, plunging flow at the lower limit of the transition range

FIGURE 4. Changing flow pattern with falling tailwater. The discharge shown here in the l:6-scale model
is equivalent to 14.7 cfs per ft in the prototype.
DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A13
A14 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

Furthermore, for convenience, L can be substituted for Lp in the

h/Lp ratio. Thus, the scope of the investigation is represented by
the expression

(4)

FREE-FLOW DISCHARGE EQUATIONS

For free flow, discharge control occurs at a critical-flow section on
the roadway. This means that a unique relationship exists between
the discharge and the head on the embankment. Consequently, a
one-dimensional discharge equation can be derived from a simple
energy analysis.
The discharge equation for a so-called ideal fluid is based on the as-
sumption of potential flow (no boundary resistance, no energy losses) ,
with uniform velocity distribution and hydrostatic pressure distribu-
tion in the approach channel and on the roadway. From the one-
dimensional energy and continuity equations for the reach between a
section at the crown line and a section in the channel immediately
upstream from the embankment, the free discharge of an ideal fluid
is

_y0), (5)
in which y0 is the depth of flow at the crown line. From the addi-
tional assumption that y0 is equal to the critical depth for the dis-
charge <?,, and from the fact that the critical depth is theoretically
equal to two-thirds the total head,

Because the conditions assumed in the derivation of equation 6 are

never actually satisfied, the discharge equation for an ideal flow must
be adjusted to the flow of a real fluid. Thus, in the following equa-
tion,

Jf0Hi*i (7)

q is the true discharge of a real fluid, and C3 is an experimentally de-

termined coefficient which accounts for the inaccuracies inherent in
equation 6.
It is customary in American engineering practice to use a coefficient
O which combines the coefficient of discharge and the constants, in-
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A15

eluding <7, in equation 7. Thus, the equation of discharge in its sim-

plest form is

q=CHj, (8)

in which C has the dimensions of V<7- The obvious practical advan-

tages of the simple equation have been weighed against the fact that
C is a dimensional qauntity. The decision to use equation 8 as the
basic equation of discharge for this investigation is a concession to
the convenience of the practicing American engineer. Those who in-
sist that the coefficient of discharge must be nondimensional will be
compelled to divide <7 by a constant involving -\/g.
The independent variables which govern C are the same as those
which govern Cz in the general functional expression for the coeffi-
cient of discharge. Therefore, from equation 4,

For free flow, t/h is significant only as it defines the condition of

incipient submergence.
From equation 6, a simple equation for the discharge of an ideal
fluid is

««=f -^ (32.2) #^=3.09 Hj, (10)

and the coefficient 3.09 can be described as the ideal value of C in

equation 8.
EFFECT OF BOUNDARY RESISTANCE
Two equations for free-flow discharge have been described. One,
illustrated by equation 6, is sometimes called a theoretical or ideal
equation, because certain real-fluid characteristics were ignored in its
derivation. The second, illustrated by equation 7, is a simple modifi-
cation of equation 6 which depends on the experimental evaluation of
a coefficient of discharge for real-fluid flows. To the second can be
added the result of the dimensional analysis, which provides a means
of correlating the variables which govern the coefficient of discharge.
Still lacking is a completely analytical equation of discharge for real
fluids.
An analytical equation must contain terms capable of describing
the influence of boundary characteristics and real-fluid characteristics
which were ignored in the development of equation 6. Of these, the
most important for free-flow discharge conditions are the effects of
A16 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

boundary resistance. These effects are incorporated symbolically in

an equation which begins, as did equation 6, with the one-dimensional
equations of energy and continuity.

FIGURE 6. Partially established boundary-layer flow.

In figure 6 the flow at a typical section on the roadway is repre-

sented as a partially established boundary-layer flow. In the figure,
V is the average velocity in the section; U is the uniform velocity in
the potential flow outside the boundary layer; A, is the difference be-
tween U2/(2g) and the true average velocity head, aV2/(2g) ; HI is
the total head at the upstream measuring section (referred to the local
level of the boundary); H is the true total head at the roadway sec-
tion ; and HL is the head loss between the upstream section and the
roadway section. Because the flow is uniform (the velocity vectors
are everywhere straight and parallel), y in figure 6 is both the depth
of flow and the true piezometric head referred to the boundary. The
boundary-layer thickness, 8, is represented as the nominal distance
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A17

from the boundary to the point where the velocity, u, is equal to U.

Also shown on figure 6 is 8a, the boundary-layer displacement thick-
ness, which is defined in the equation

q=yU-lf7=(y-lJU, (11)
in which q is the true discharge, yV is the potential discharge, and
SqU is the discharge decrement due to the boundary layer.
From figure 6 and the preceding definitions, a one-dimensional
energy equation is
772
H=H1 -HL=y+ l^-\, (12)

and from the simultaneous solution of equations 11 and 12,

(13)
If it is assumed that the roadway section is located at the crown line,
then y="y0 (see fig. 5) and, without special identification, 8q and A, are
the crown-line values of the boundary-layer quantities. It follows
that the counterpart of equation 5 is

(14)
in which HL is now defined as the head loss between the measuring
section and the crown line.
When the measuring section Js a considerable distance from the
roadway, HL must be evaluated in order to determine the net head on
the embankment. Actually, 'J£L can only be estimated, for it depends
on the resistance characteristics of the upstream channel as well as
the embankment. On the other hand, if the measuring section is lo-
cated close to the embankment, as it was for the model tests described
herein, HL is very small. At this point it is convenient to assume that
HL is negligible. Consequently, from equation 14,

(15)
In the derivation of equation 6 from equation 5 it was assumed
that the depth at the crown line is equal to the critical depth. With
this assumption and the assumption that the critical depth is again
equal, to two-thirds the total head, y0 can be eliminated from equa-
tion 15, whence

(16)
A18 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

Simplifying,

(17)

Expanding, and discarding terms which are negligible when Sg and

A are small relative to H^

g=3.09 r#i f -| ^(5?-X)l> (18)

or,

g=3.09 Hj |~1-| (^^)T (19)

Therefore, from equations 8 and 19,

(20)

From equation 10, the quantity 3.09 Hj2 in equation 19 is equal

to <?i, the discharge of an ideal fluid. Thus, the quantity in brackets
in the last two equations is a measure of the total influence of boundary
resistance.
The quantity in brackets in equations 19 and 20 involves the rel-
ative magnitude of the quantities SQ and A. It is significant to recall
that Sq is a measure of the influence of boundary resistance on the
continuity equation, and A is a measure of the influence of boundary
resistance on the energy equation. The usefulness of equations 19
and 20 depends on the determination of a means of evaluating 8q and
A.
It should be emphasized that the preceding development involves
several assumptions which must be verified or delimited by experi-
ment. For example, the equations are misleading when (for large
values of h/L) form effects are dominant in comparison with the
effects of boundary resistance. Similarly, it is obviously wrong to
neglect HL under some circumstances. The determination of the real
significance of such qualifications is an important objective of the
experimental investigation.
SUBMERGED FLOW
Equations of discharge for free flow have been derived on the basis
of a simple energy analysis. The analysis was made possible because
critical-flow control occurs on the roadway when the flow is free.
When the flow is submerged, however, the discharge capacity of the
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT- SHAPED WEIRS A19

downstream channel is a primary control. Thus, for submerged flow,

the discharge depends on the tailwater level 'as well as the head.
Complications introduced by the influence of the tailwater make
it impractical to derive an independent equation for submerged flow.
The most expedient alternative is an empirical solution based on ex-
periment and the free-flow discharge equation.
In the general functional relationship for the coefficient of dis-
charge (eq 4), a single ratio (t/Ji) distinguishes submerged flow from
free flow. This observation leads to the conclusion that the effect of
submergence can be expressed in terms of Ctree and t/h, as in

^subm =/ I Cfree> T I' \"l)

Frequently it leads to another conclusion, namely,

(22)

which is difficult to justify physically as well as mathematically. Ac-

tually, of course, the coefficient of discharge for submerged flow
should be expected to be independently related to all the ratios listed
in equation 4. In other words, there is no basis for believing that all
ratios must have the same significance in both free and submerged
flow. Thus, empirical solutions based on equation 22 are adequate
as well as convenient only to the extent that Ctree is constant over
the full range of conditions considered. When Ctree is not constant,
application of equation 22 results in a vague definition of the condi-
tions which govern the value of Ctr^ to be used as a reference param-
eter for C^ubm-
For purposes of reducing and analyzing the experimental data, the
simple equation of discharge, with C defined as in equations 8 and 9,
is used for both free and submerged flow.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
GENERAL, ARRANGEMENT
The equipment used for all the tests made after 1954 was essentially
the same. Embankment models were located in an existing flume.
Water is supplied to the flume from the laboratory's constant-head
system. A gate valve in the supply line is used to regulate the dis-
charge, and a hinged tailgate in the flume is used to regulate the
tailwater level. The maximum discharge used in the tests was about
6 cfs (^=2 cfs per ft in the model, corresponding to 54 cfs per ft in
the prototype) . Figure 7 shows the general 'arrangement of the ex-
perimental equipment.
690-195 O - 64 - 4
From constant-head tank

-Valve

Baffles

Width of flume = 3 ft

1:9 -scale Imodel

ij Standard location of .1.75ft
upstream piezometers^"'
^C\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\XXXJ1

To weighing tank

FIGURE 7. Arrangement of experimental equipment.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A21
FLUME

The flume is 3 feet wide, 3 feet deep, and about 30 feet long. The
average inside width at the position of the embankment is 3.010 feet.
The flume is constructed of steel, with three 5-foot-long glass panels
on each side. Adjustable rails on the top of the flume walls provide
a level track for instrument carriages. The bottom-hinged steel tail-
gate is operated with a winch, which is mounted on the top of the
flume. Figure 8 is a photograph of the test section of the flume with
a model installed.

FIGURE 8. View of l:9-scale model embankment In test flume.

Water enters the flume from a 12-inch pipe, which discharges ver-
tically into the deep forebay section of the flume. Baffles required to
produce a uniform flow upstream from the models consist of chain-
link wire fencing at the inlet, a low weir, 2 corrugated-metal cribs, 2
expanded-metal screens, and a surface float.
EMBANKMENT MODELS

The basic structure for all models was a framework of exterior-grade

plywood and aluminum angles. The pavement and shoulder surfaces
were made of ^4-inch aluminum plate, and the embankment and berm
surfaces were made of %-inch plywood. False floors both upstream
rand downstream from the embankment model were used to vary the
height of the embankment. The downstream floor was made of ply-
wood; the upstream floor was made of aluminum plate.
When the original 1:9-scale model was built in 1954, sharp lines
marked the intersections of the embankment, shoulder, and pavement
surfaces. The crown line was marked by the intersection of the sepa-
rate plates which comprised the two lanes of the pavement. Subse-
quent use and repeated polishing of the metal plates resulted in a slight
rounding of the intersections. However, comparisons of similar tests
A22 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

made at different times during the period from 1954 to 1959 showed
no effects which could be attributed specifically to the Founding. It is
significant that the model with slightly rounded surface intersections
is doubtless a better representation of the prototype than a model built
in strict accordance with the design specifications.
Variations in the slopes of the pavement and shoulder surfaces were
accomplished by placing metal shims between the surface plates and
the supporting angles. For model K, a piece of 16-gage sheet metal
was rolled to form a smooth transition between the upstream embank-
ment and the shoulder. A %-inch bronze rod was fastened to the
downstream edge of the downstream shoulder for model L. For model
M, berms were built on a framework of wood and covered with
plywood.
Figure 9 shows details and dimensions of the basic embankment
design (model A). Figure 10 shows special details of models K, L,
and M. A photograph of a typical l:9-scale model in the flume is
shown in figure 8.
For models A through M, all exposed model surfaces were smooth.
Aluminum surfaces were polished, and they were kept waxed to pre-
vent pitting by corrosion. Plywood surfaces were sanded and painted.
For models AA, AB, AC, and KA the embankment surfaces were
made rough. Two methods were used. For models AA and KA, a
piece of new 14- by 18-mesh bronze window screen was stretched taut
over the entire surface of the model. The diameter of the wire from
which the screen was made was 0.011 inch.
For models AB and AC the roughness elements consisted of No. 9
lead birdshot. The shot was 0.080 inch in diameter and very nearly
spherical. The distribution density on the model was approximately
75 shot per square inch. The birdshot was attached to the model sur-
faces with varnish. Two coats of varnish were brushed on the surfaces
and allowed to become tacky, then the birdshot was sprinkled on the
surfaces. The varnish was allowed to dry at least 48 hours, then a thin
coat of varnish was sprayed on and allowed to dry at least 24 hours.
For model AB the birdshot was applied to the embankment slopes and
shoulder surfaces only. For model AC it was applied to the entire
model surface. Figure 11 shows a photograph of model AC and a
closeup of the birdshot-roughened surface.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS

The discharge for all the tests was determined from measurements
made with the laboratory's semiautomatic weighing system. Flow
from the downstream end of the flume drops directly into the weighing
tank, which is located on the floor below the flume. The weighing sys-
 = l in. in 9ft =0.014

Ss = 4^ in. in 6 ft =0.062

Crown line

Symmetrical about centerline

FIGURE 9. Basic embankment design. All dimensions as in prototype.

fe
00
A24 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

\\\V/\\ Cv/V

Sp = 0.014
5S = variable (rounded)

5S = 0.062 (basic design)

A. Model K (rounded upstream shoulder)

|5 =0.062 "g-in. rod (model)

= 0.50

ff. Model L (trip rod on downstream shoulder)

Crown line
5s = 0.062
Se = 0.50

Symmetrical about centerline

C. Model M (berms on embankment slopes)

FIGURE 10. Special design variations (models K, L, and M). All dimensions as in prototype.

tern includes automatic controls to move the diversion car, to open and
close the tank valve, and to start and stop an electric time-interval
clock. The overall accuracy of the equipment is believed to be such
that discharge measurements are accurate within % of 1 percent.
Figure 12 shows the downstream end of the test flume (upper floor)
and the weighing-tank apparatus (lower floor).
PIEZOMETRIC-HEAD AND PROFILE MEASUREMENTS

Headwater and tailwater piezometric levels were generally meas-

ured with hook gages mounted over stilling wells connected to pairs of
floor piezometers. Some measurements were made with a precise
manometer. An engineer's transit and a special light-weight target
rod were used to zero the hook gages. The average of several readings
DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A25

A.- Looking downstream at model

B. Cloeeup of birdehot roughneee

FIGURE 11. Model AC with birdshot roughness.

A26 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

FIGURE 12. Weighing-tank system for discharge measurements.

on the crown line was used to establish the reference level for gage
zero.
Piezometers for most of the headwater measurements were located
in the aluminum false floor, 1.75 feet (corresponding to 15.8 feet in the
prototype) upstream from the intersection of the false floor and the
embankment slope. For some tests, piezometers located farther up-
stream were used, but the measurements were subsequently adjusted,
if necessary, to correspond with measurements made at the standard
location.
Stilling wells were made of transparent plastic pipe. They were
attached to the side of the flume and located close to the crown line
to avoid any influence of laboratory-floor deflection. Headwater and
tailw^ater levels are believed to be accurate within 0.001 foot.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A27
Water-surface profiles and the depth of flow at the crown line were
measured with a point gage mounted on a movable carriage (fig. 13).
The headwater level, as determined by the hook gage, was used to zero

FIGURE 13. Point gage (left) and pitot-static tube (right).

690-195 O - 64 - 5
A28 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

the point gage. Longitudinal stationing for the point-gage measure-

ments was obtained from a steel tape located adjacent to the carriage
rail on the top of the flume. The accuracy of point-gage measure-
ments depends on the instability of the water surface, but it is believed
that the measurements were accurate within 0.002 foot.

VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

Equipment required especially for boundary-layer measurements

consisted principally of velocity-measuring instruments and precision
manometers. Velocities outside the boundary layer were measured
with a pitot-static tube. This tube, shown on the right in figure 13,
has an outside diameter of % 6 inch. Its stagnation and static openings
are so located that the coefficient of the tube is very nearly 1.0. The
tube was fastened to the staff of a hook gage, which was mounted on a
movable carriage. A scale on the top rail of the flume, indexed to the
carriage, and a scale on the hook-gage staff provided for accurate
determination of the position of the pitot-static tube relative to the
model. A pivoted connection between the gage staff and the tube per-
mitted the tip leg of the tube to be adjusted so that it was always paral-
lel to the flow at the point of measurement.
The air-water manometer used with the pitot-static tube is shown in
figure 14. The manometer is of the zero-displacement type, with back-
lighted stainless-steel needles in glass tubes for accurate positioning
of the menisci. Differential heads can be measured accurately within
0.001 foot with this manometer.
The stagnation tube used for boundary-layer velocity measurements
is shown in figure 15. The tip of this tube was made from a 22-gage
(0.028-inch outside diameter) stainless-steel hypodermic needle. The
vertical leg is a brass tube, ys inch in outside diameter, backed up
with a streamlined brass bar. The stagnation tube is mounted on a
hook-gage staff, and a dial-type displacement gage is attached to the
staff to provide for the accurate determination of the position of the
tube. The smallest division on the dial scale is 0.001 inch. The
stagnation-tube staff was provided with a pivot mount, in order that
velocity traverses could be taken on sections which were perpendicular
to the boundary at all stations.
The gage zero for the stagnation-tube displacement gage was deter-
mined at each measuring station by setting the dial scale to read zero
when the bottom of the tube was placed against the surface of the
model without bearing any of the weight of the tube assembly. The
bottom of the tube was accurately located in this position by means
of a horizontal light beam focused through the glass wall of the flume
from a position opposite the observer and at an elevation just above
the surface. Thus, the tube could be positioned very sensitively by
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A29

FIGURE 14. Manometer for the pitot-static tube.

lowering it until no light could be seen between the bottom of the tube
and the surface of the model.
The manometer used for the stagnation-tube measurements is shown
in figure 16. The manometer is essentially a zero-displacement point
gage. It consists of >a black-lighted needle in a small glass tube,
mounted on a frame which utilizes a vernier caliper for level deter-
minations. Piezometric levels can be measured accurately within 0.001
inch with the manometer.
The zero reading for velocity determinations with the stagnation
tube was determined by comparison with the differential-head reading
A30 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

FIGURE 15. Stagnation tube for boundary-layer velocity measurements.

DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A31

FIGURE 16. Manometer for the stagnation tube.

A32 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

obtained with the pitot-static tube in a uniform-flow zone outside the

boundary layer at the same station. Thus, the absolute accuracy of
the stagnation-tube velocity measurements depends on the accuracy of
the pitot-static tube measurements.
SCOPE OF EMBANKMENT-DESIGN VARIATIONS
Scale-model tests were made on 17 variations of the basic embank-
ment design. Data used in the report were obtained from tests made by
Prawel, Davidian, and Emmett. Included in these tests, which were
made after 1956, are duplications of test conditions investigated before
1956.
The scope of the design variations involved in the tests is given in
table 1. All models described in table 1 were built to a scale of 1: 9.
The corresponding unit-discharge (q) scale is 1: 27. Model A is the
basic design, which is shown in prototype dimensions in figure 9. The
design for model A was suggested by the Georgia State Highway
Department in 1947. At that time it was typical of designs being
used for secondary asphaltic-pavement two-lane highways. It is be-
lieved that subsequent changes in design standards, at least as they
concern hydraulic characteristics, are adequately represented by the
design variations described in table 1.
Models A-l through A-A are different versions of the basic design.
Each model represents a minor reconstruction or refurbishing which
followed tests on some of the design variations. The purpose of
models B, C, and D was to demonstrate the influence of h/P by com-
parison with model A. Thus, models otherwise identical with model
A were tested with a full range of heads and with values of P equal
to one-fourth, one-half, and three-fourths of the value of P for the
basic design.
To demonstrate the influence of pavement cross slope (/Sp ) , models
otherwise identical with model A were tested with 4 different values
of /Sp. 2 larger and 2 smaller than /Sp for the basic design. Similarly,
the influence of shoulder slope (/Ss ) was demonstrated with two
models. For one of these, fis was equal to Sp for model A. For the
other, fSs w^as somewhat larger than jSs for the basic design.
Model K was built especially for tests concerned with the influence
of the boundary layer. It involved a rounded intersection between
the upstream embankment slope and shoulder. Model L was identical
with the basic design except for a tripwire located on the downstream
edge of the downstream shoulder. The purpose of this variation is
described subsequently. Model M was designed to simulate the in-
fluence of the berm on both slopes of the embankment tested by
Yarnell and Nagler (1930). Otherwise, model M was identical with
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A33
TABLE 1. Summary of designs tested, l:9-scale models
[Asterisk (*) indicates that shape detail differs from basic design]

Height, P (feet) Pavement cross Shoulder slope,

slope, Sp Ss
Surface
Model Investigator roughness Remarks
Proto- Model Inches: Nondi- Inches: Nondi-
type feeti men- feeti men-
sional sional

A-1 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 0.014 4.5:6 0.062 Basic design.

A-2 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 do... .. Do.
A-3 ..... do..- 10.5 1 17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 .....do.......... Do.
A-4 Emmett--~ 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 .....do.. ........ Do.
B *7.88 *.875 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 do.. Effect of P.
C do... *5.25 *.583 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 . do.. ...... .. Do.
D -.-do--- *2.62 *.292 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 do... ... Do.
E do___ 10.5 1.17 *0:9 *.ooo 4.5:6 .062 do_. ........ Effect of Sp.
F ... ..do-.- 10.5 1.17 *.9:9 *.008 4.5:6 .062 do-.. Do.
G -do__ 10.5 1.17 *2.2:9 *.020 4.5:6 .062 .... -do-._ Do.
H do..- 10.5 1.17 *2.8:9 *.026 4.5:6 .062 ..... do....... Do.
I -do.-- 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 *1.0:6 *.014 do-- Effect of Ss.
J do... 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 *5.7:6 *.079 do... .... Do.
K-1 Davidian 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 do... (2)
K-2 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 do..- - (2)
L do.. 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 ..... do..- (3)
M do_.-..- 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 do-.- (4)
AA-1 Davidian--_ 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 Window screen
(all surfaces).
AA-2 Emmett- 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062
AB .do.- 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 Birdshot (ex-
cept on pave-
ment) .
AC do.. 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 4.5:6 .062 Birdshot (all
surfaces).
KA Davidian. -. 10.5 1.17 1.5:9 .014 Window screen
(all surfaces) . (2)

' Dimensions given in prototype units (see fig. 9).

2 Rounded transition between upstream embankment and shoulder surfaces. (Seeflg. 10,4.)
3 Trip wire on downstream edge of downstream shoulder. (See fig. 10B.)
4 Berm on embankment slopes. (See fig. 10C.)

model A. Details of design for models K, L, and M are shown on

figure 10.
The remaining four design variations shown in table 1 were in-
tended to demonstrate the influence of surface roughness on the dis-
charge characteristics of an embankment. These models involve 3
kinds of roughness on model design A and 1 on model design K.
SIGNIFICANCE OF ROUGHNESS VARIATIONS
Only four different degrees or patterns of surface roughness (in-
cluding "smooth") were involved in all the model variations described
in table 1. Furthermore, the simple k/h ratio used to represent rela-
tive roughness in equation 10 is inadequate to describe the roughness
variations tested. Nevertheless, the tests made with rough-surfaced
models are expected to result in a general understanding of the in-
fluence of roughness on the coefficient of discharge and other im-
portant flow characteristics.
Model A, the basis of comparison for all other designs, included
smooth surfaces on all parts of the embankment and roadway. In
terms of the prototype, the characteristics revealed by this model are
A34 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

believed to simulate reasonably accurately the characteristics of a

smooth, paved roadway in good repair.
Models AA and KA were rough-surfaced models. The roughness
consisted of wire screen, a type of roughness used previously by Bauer
(1954) in a related investigation. Uniform-flow tests made by Bauer,
using a slightly different kind of screen, indicated that the effective
roughness could be compared with rough concrete in the prototype.
Models AB and AC featured a relatively large, granular-type
roughness, consisting of birdshot cemented to the surface in a random
pattern (see fig. 11). This variety of roughness is believed to simu-
late a reasonable maximum prototype roughness. For model AC the
birdshot was applied to the entire model surface. For model AB the
birdshot was applied only to the embankment slopes and shoulders.
Model AB should give an indication of the influence of rough shoul-
ders bordering a smooth pavement.
Roughness investigations for open-channel flows are usually com-
plicated by the fact that the depth of flow varies with the discharge.
Therefore, a ratio like k/h or k/y, unlike the corresponding relative-
roughness ratio used for pipe flow, varies with discharge as well as
roughness. Also, because the Reynolds number for the mean flow is
R=Fy/v=<?/v, values of R for the prototype are in a higher range
than values of R in the model for corresponding values of geometric
ratios such as h/P and h/L. Furthermore, the nature of prototype
roughness, especially embankment and shoulder roughness, is ex-
tremely variable and very difficult to simulate in the laboratory. It
is believed that a comprehensive investigation of the influence of
roughness will require, in addition to small-scale model tests, a care-
fully controlled program of tests on full-scale models or prototypes.
INFLUENCE OF EMBANKMENT FORM AND ROUGHNESS
OBJECTIVE
The laboratory investigations had two main objectives. One was
the experimental determination of the relationship between embank-
ment form and roughness and some of the more important discharge
characteristics. The second was the theoretical and experimental
definition of the relationship between free-flow discharge and the
boundary layer on the roadway. The first objective is discussed in
this part of the report.
The data needed to accomplish the first objective are mostly those
needed to define the coefficient of discharge and the characteristic
flow patterns for free and submerged flow. The analysis is empirical,
but it is guided by the results of the dimensional analysis. A summary
of the results of the tests described in this part of the report is given
in table 3 in the section "Experimental Data."
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A35

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE FOR FREE FLOW

Tests made to determine the coefficient of discharge for free flow

involved the measurement of the head and discharge. The discharge
coefficient, 67, was computed from equation 8, wherein H-i is the total
head referred to the crown line (see fig. 5),

<23)

and q is the total measured discharge divided by the width of the flume
at the crown line,
2=|- (24)

Figures 17, 18, and 19 show the coefficient of discharge for all the
designs tested. In these figures, values of C are plotted as a function
of both h and h/L, where h is the piezometric head (as measured in
the model) and L is the total width of pavement and two shoulders.
The two abscissa scales are independently significant. Thus, A. is a
scale of reference for the influence of boundary resistance and "scale
effect," because h is directly proportional to the Reynolds number.
On the other hand, h/L is a scale of reference for form effects, includ-
ing the effect of curvilinear flow at the control section.
Figure 17 shows the coefficient of discharge for the basic design,

3.2

3.0-

x Model A-2

+ Model A-3

O Model A-4
2.6
O.I 0.2. u.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of ft, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of 'h/L

FIGUKE 17. Coefficient of discharge for free flow; basic design, model A.

model A. The curve, visually fitted to the plotted points, shows an

initial trend for C to increase with h and approach asymptotically the
ideal value (3.09). When h exceeds about 0.5 feet, however, the curve
690-195 O - 64 - 6
A36 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

inflects, and C begins to increase more rapidly, eventually exceeding

3.09. As implied by the overlapping scales of h and k/L, the inflection
in the C curve is believed to be related to the gradual change from
dominant boundary-resistance influence to dominant boundary-form
influences.
Figure 18 shows the coefficient of discharge for all the smooth-
surfaced models. The several parts of the figure show, by comparison
with the basic design (model A), the independent effects of A/P, $p,
and /Ss, as well as the special features represented by models K, L,
andM.
Figure 18^1 shows the effect of P and, indirectly, the influence of
h/P. The figure shows the results of tests made with models B, C,
and D, as well as the curve for model A from figure 17. Considering
the probable experimental error, which can be expected to increase as
P decreases (the result of waves and surges in the approach channel),
figure 18^1 shows no distinct, systematic relationship between C and P.
Consequently, because the tests cover approximately the same range of
h values for each of the four P values represented, it is concluded
that C is virtually independent of h/P.
Figure 18B shows the influence of pavement cross slope on the co-
efficient of discharge for free flow. The results of tests on models
A, E, F, G, and H show a poorly defined but systematic relationship
between C and Sp. However, the average deviation from the model A
curve is less than 1 percent for all models except model H, for which
Sp was nearly twice the value specified for the basic design. Thus, for
purposes of practical application, the correlation between C and Sp is
believed to be insignificant.
Figure ISO shows the influence of shoulder slope, $8, based on the
results of tests on models I, J, and K-2, as well as model A. Model
K-2 is included because it simulates the prototype condition of a
rounded or variable-slope shoulder which is tangent to both the em-
bankment slope and the pavement. The results of the tests shown on
figure 18 C are somewhat contradictory, because the maximum con-
sistent deviation from the model A curve is shown by the model which
most nearly resembles the basic design. Again, however, the average
deviation from the model A curve is not more than 1 percent for any
of the design variations represented. Thus, for practical purposes, C
is believed to be independent of S8.
In view of the results shown on figures 18 (A, B, C} , it is not surpris-
ing to find that the special design variations represented by models
L (tripwire on downstream shoulder) and M (berm on both embank-
ment slopes) have an insignificant influence on the coefficient of dis-
charge for free flow. This conclusion is substantiated by the test
results shown on figure 18D.
 i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 i ll III i i i
x * J!--
a^^ ^^r-^ ^^' X n * n V r-1
U __Et£! U-V) A
G&J&- "S^^^T ° O O
<o 3.0 ^---~~"~"~~~~'~~'~~^ 30^ X__-A '^"K"" M
L^^ 00
o ° B
M
f 2.8 Model A (P=l. 17 ft), A Model C (P = 0.583 ft) 2>8 " Model A(SP = 0.014), A Model F(Sp = 0.008)
curve from fig. 17 curve from fig. 17 o Model G (Sp = 0.020)
§
H
0 Model B (P = 0.875 ft) EJ Model D (P = 0.292 ft) P 0 Model E(Sp = 0.000) X Model H (Sp = 0.026) 0
i i i i i i i i i iii 0 ^ II II

t-G0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 ^'"0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 £
Volues of h, in feet Values of /?, in feet
A. Influence of h/p B. Influence of pavement M
0.10 0.15 0.20 cross slope, Sp Q.IO 0.15 0.20 g
Values of h/L Values of h/L W
»>
l i i i i i i ^ i i i i

_ ,
- A-1 O- ^
<o 3.0 3.0 -
i
H
5 ^~**^*'
^ ^-^"^^
^ J|
i
01 _ 00
a> tcj
> 2.8 2.8
M
curve from fig. 17 curve from fig. 17 downstream shoulder) O
B Model K-2 (rounded -
O Model K-2 (rounded B Model M (berm on
O Model 1 (S5 = 0.014) shoulder) embankment slopes)
shoulder)
i i i i i i i i i iii i iii ii
°" eO O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 """0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 B
Values of /?, in feet Values of /?, in feet SJ
C. Influence of shoulder D. Influence of special
slope, Ss 0,10 0.15 0.20 design variations Q.IO 0,15 0.20
Values of h/L Values of h/L

FIGURE 18. Coefficient of discharge for free flow; smooth-surfaced models.

00
ASS FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2

<o 3.0

Model A (all surfaces smooth), curve

from fig. 17
Model AA-2 (screen-wire roughness)
Head datum at middepth of screen-wire at

2.6, I____I____I____I____I____i j____|____I

, O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Volues of h, in feet
Screen-wire roughness
on all surfaces 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Values of h/L
1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 1 I

<o 3.0
O
<t>
from fig. 17
| 2.8 O Model AB (birdshot on shoulders and
embankment slopes)
Head datum at smooth surface at crown line

2.6 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l i i
D O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.
a _. . , , Values of /?, in feet
I3. Birdshot roughness
on shoulder 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
and embankment slope Values of h/L
l l i i l l l i i i i

3.2
Datum at top of birdshot at crown line

3.0

Datum at middepth of birdshot

2.8

Q Model A (all surfaces smooth), curve

from fig. 17
2.6 x x Datum at e CD Model AC (birdshot on all surfaces)
smooth
surface

2.4 i i i i
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet
Birdshot roughness
on all surfaces 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Values of h/L

FIGURE 19. Coefficient of discharge for free flow; rough-surfaced models.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A39

Figure 19 shows the influence of roughness on the coefficient of dis-

charge. As in figure 18, the curve for model A is used as a basis for
comparison. Figure 19^4 shows that screen-wire roughness over the
entire model surface (model AA-2) causes the coefficients to be con-
sistently about 1 percent lower than the coefficients for model A. It
is noted in the figure that C is computed on the basis of the assumption
that the head datum is at the level of the middepth of the screen wire
at the crown line. Alternate assumptions might have placed the datum
at the level of the top of the screen or at the level of the smooth surface
of the model. As the thickness of the screen fabric is approximately
0.002 foot, the maximum difference in heads computed on the basis of
the different assumptions would have been only 0.002 foot. Thus, the
corresponding difference in computed values of C would have been
negligible except at very small values of h. The question of head
datum relative to screen-wire thickness is obviously meaningless in
terms of the prototype.
Figure 19# shows the influence of a relatively large, granular-type
(birdshot) roughness on the shoulders and embankment slopes. Be-
cause the pavement was smooth, as in model A, the head datum was
the level of the smooth model surface at the crown line. The coeffi-
cient of discharge for model AB appears to differ very little from
that for the basic design.
Figure \$C shows the results of tests on model AC, with birdshot
roughness on all model surfaces. The results are presented in a form
which shows the influence of alternate assumptions regarding the
datum for head computations. In this instance, because the diam-
eter of the birdshot was nearly O.OOY foot, the effect of the alternative
assumptions on computed values of C is appreciable. A dashed curve
is drawn through the points which correspond to the datum at mid-
depth of the birdshot.
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE FOR SUBMERGED FLOW

In the previous discussion of submerged flow (p. 18), it was empha-

sized that the coefficient of discharge for submerged flow is inde-
pendently related to all the variables involved in free flow, plus the
submergence ratio, t/Ji. It was concluded that C for submerged-
flow tests, like C for free-flow tests, should be computed from equa-
tion 8.
Figure 20 shows C plotted as a function of t/h for models A-2, B,
C, and D. Different symbols are used to identify the plotted points
which correspond to different constant values of P. It is apparent
from the figure that the relationship between C and t/h is inde-
pendently correlated with P. For purposes of application to the
prototype, the P variable in figure 20 should be expressed as a non-
 A40 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2

A X* H X X
Q

2.8

As x
O A B
O

2.0

Model A-2 (P= I. 17ft)

A
Model B (^ = 0.875ft)
1.6
0
Model C (P=0. 583ft)
X

Model D (P = 0. 292ft)
1.2
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of f/h
FIGURE 20. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of h/P, with t/h as the submergence ratio.

dimensional ratio. Unfortunately, however, the most likely param-

eter for this purpose, A, varies independently with q and t/h.
Therefore, the ratio h/P is incapable of defining a single family of
curves on a figure such as figure 20. The problem was conveniently
resolved by changing the definition of the submergence ratio. Thus,
when the submergence ratio is defined as t/H-^ instead of t/h, the
effect of P is virtually eliminated. This conclusion is substantiated
by a comparison of figures 20 and 21.
Figure 21 shows a considerable scatter of plotted points but no
systematic correlation with P. In general, points showing the maxi-
mum deviation from the average curve represent tests made with
larger values of h/P. It is significant that waves and surges in the
approach channel cause increasing difficulties and errors of measure-
ment as h/P increases. Subsequent demonstrations of the sensi-
tivity of C'subin to small irregularities on the roadway are more reason
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A41
3.2

2.8

2.4
Average for smooth-
surfaced models

Average for model A,

curve from fig.22
o
Model A-2(/>=l.l7ft)
A

Model B (P =0.875 ft)

1.6 a

Model C (P =0.583 ft)

x
Model D (P =0.292 ft)
1.2
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of

FIGURE 21. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence ofh/P, with t/Hi as the submergence ratio.

to accept the scatter of points in figure 21 as evidence of normal

experimental error.
The data shown on figures 20 and 21 represent the same tests and,
therefore, the same range of discharges as were used for the free-flow
coefficients shown on figure ISA. In figure 18J., as for all free-flow
tests, the coefficient is clearly related to h (or q). It seems reason-
able to expect that the rate of flow will be similarly involved in the
relationship between Csubm and t/H±. This conclusion is readily
tested on the basis of the data shown on figure 22. Here, for two
versions of model A, different rates of flow are identified with differ-
ent symbols. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from figure 22 is
that the effect of q is insignificant.
For purposes of comparison with other model designs, an average
curve for model A is fitted to the data shown on figure 22. It is ob-
served that the plotted points do not deviate from the curve by an
A42 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q1 ^""^^M^^ .-Average for all

o "xX^^ smooth-surfaced
2.8 ^v-J-v models

Average for model A *\ \\A

B\ \ -

2 4
<*
o \ \A
to
Model A-2 Model A-3 \\
O
> 2.0 -
o
c7=O.I43cfs
x
(7=0.221 cfs
ckA
'T\

q =0.222 cfs g= 0.476 cfs \^y 0

Q T A
<7=0.45I cfs q- 1.012 cfs ^
1.6 © j_ ®\\
(7=0.65 cfs <7= 1.53 cfs ^1
B \\ -

q = 1.14 cfs \j^

1.2 I I I 1 i i i i i
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of////!

FIGURE 22. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; basic design, model A.

amount in excess of the probable experimental accuracy. Some

uncertainty may exist, however, regarding the value of O represented
by the incipient-submergence end of the curve. Here, at least, it
might be expected that the previously observed influence of q on
Ctree would require consideration.
It is recalled that the variation of tffree with h shown on figures
17,18, and 19 is related to the influence of boundary resistance at low
heads and to the influence of boundary-form effects (principally flow
curvature) at higher heads. Characteristics related to heads smaller
than 0.5 foot are seldom likely to be significant in terms of the proto-
type. Furthermore, when t/Hv is 0.84 or over, as it is when incipient
submergence occurs, flow at the control section is very nearly uniform
(see fig. 25), and, regardless of the head, flow curvature is not likely
to have a significant influence on C. Thus, in figure 22 and all sub-
sequent plots of C versus t/H^ the value of <7free used to define the
incipient-submergence end of the average curves is the value at the
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A43
point of inflection on the corresponding curve in figures 17, 18, and
19. The 'average curve for model A is shown on figure 21 as well as
figures 22 through 28. Also shown on those figures is an average
curve for all smooth-surfaced models (A through M).
Figure 23 shows the results of submerged-flow tests made with
models A. E, F, G, and H, all with different values of Sp. The plotted
points are remarkably close to the average curve for smooth-surfaced
models. They show no significant correlation with Sp.

3.;

2.8

2.4
Average for smooth
surfaced models

Model A (Sp =0.014),

curve from fig. 22
> 2.0
Model E (5/7 =0.000)
A

Model F (Sp =0.008)

1.6 D

Model G (Sp =0.020)

x
Model H (5^ =0.026)

1.2 I i i i i
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of t/H

FIGURE 23. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of pavement cross slope, Sp.

Figure 24 shows the influence of shoulder slope, $s, based on tests

made with models A, I, J, and K-2. Points representing model I de-
viate considerably from the average curve. However, the value of
Ss used in this model is smaller than that ordinarily used in practice.
Considerable scatter characterizes the results of tests made with the
rounded-shoulder model (K-2). The average of the scattered points
agrees reasonably well with the average curve for all smooth-surfaced
690-195 O - 64 - 7
A44 PLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2

2.8

_ Average for smooth-

surfaced models
O
> 2.0 Model A (Ss =0.062),
curve from fig. 22
G
Model I (Ss =0.014)
A
1.6 Model J (Ss = 0.079)

Model K-2 (rounded

shoulder)

1.2
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of

FIGURE 24. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; Influence of shoulder slope, Ss .

models. The magnitude of the scatter is believed to be consistent with

the experimental accuracy to be expected.
The influence of the special design variations, models K-2, L, and
M, is shown in figure 25. Maximum deviation from the average curve
is shown by models K-2 (discussed above in connection with fig. 24)
and L. The results of tests on model L, with a tripwire on the down-
stream shoulder (see fig. 10 #), are particularly significant. These
results lead to the conclusion that the influence of small obstructions
on the downstream side of the roadway, particularly at the down-
stream end of the shoulder, is greater than the influence of any of
the major geometric parameters previously considered.
Figures 26, 27, and 28 show the influence of surface roughness on
the submerged-flow discharge coefficient for models AA-2, AB, and
AC. As in the preceding figures, the curve for model A and the
average curve for smooth-surfaced models is shown for comparison.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A45

2.8

ZA Average for smooth-

surfaced models

Model A (basic design\

curve from fig.22
> 2.0
o
Model K-2 (rounded
shoulder)

Model L (trip wire on

1.6 downstream shoulder)

Model M (berm on
embankment slopes)
1.2
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of ////,

FIGURE 25. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of special design variations.

It is apparent that the effect of roughness is to decrease the coefficient

of discharge and to cause the inception of submergence at lower
values of t/Hi. It is also apparent, from comparison of figures 27
and 28, that roughness on the shoulders and embankment slopes is
nearly as effective as roughness distributed uniformly over all sur-
faces of the model. Because the birdshot roughness used for models
AB and AC is believed to simulate a maximum prototype roughness,
the curve showing the results of tests on model AC, figure 28, is be-
lieved to represent a reasonable maximum influence of roughness on
^subm- The points showing considerable scatter on this figure corre-
spond to small discharges and small heads and consequently large
relative errors in computed values of C and
INCIPIENT SUBMERGENCE

The transition from free flow to submerged flow has been described
as incipient submergence. In the laboratory test procedure, the tail-
A46 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2 I I I I I I T I I I I I I

2.8

Average for smooth-

surfaced models
^ 2.4
o Model A (all surfaces smooth)
</> Curve from fig. 22
CD
JD

£ 2.0 Model AA-2 (screen-wire roughness)

Head datum at middepth of screen
at crown line

1.6

J____I____I____I____I____I
0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of t/H\
FIGTJEE 26. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of screen-wire roughness on all surfaces.

3.2 1 i i i i i i i i i l i r

2.8
o

2.4
Average for smooth-
surfaced models

Model A (all surfaces smooth),

2.0 curve from fig. 22

Model AC(birdshot on all surfaces)

Head datum at middepth of' birdshot
1.6 at crown line

0.72 0.76 0.80 0,84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00

Values of t/H±

FIGUEE 27. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of birdshot roughness on shoulders
and embankment slopes.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A47
3.2 n i i r

Average for smooth-

2.4 surfaced models

Model A (all surfaces smooth),

curve from fig. 22
o
> 2.0 Model AB (birdshot on shoulders
and embankment slopes)
Head datum at smooth surface
at crown line
1.6

1.21__ J____I____|____L
0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 LOO
Values of f/Hi

FIGURE 28. Coefficient of discharge for submerged flow; influence of birdshot roughness on all surfaces.

water level corresponding to incipient submergence for a given dis-

charge was determined by gradually raising the tailwater and ob-
serving the tailwater level at which the headwater began to rise. The
results of tests made to define the incipient-submergence tailwater
level for the full range of model discharge are shown in the upper
half of figures 29 through 37, The average curves for model A are
shown for comparison on figures 32 through 37.
Figures 29 and 30 show a comparison of alternative dependent-
variable (ordinate) scales used to define incipient submergence. The
variables used are the tailwater ratios t/Ji (fig. 29) and t/H-i (fig. 30),
and the tests used for the comparison are those involving different
values of P (models A, B, C, and D). Neither ratio shows a signifi-
cant correlation with P, but the scatter of test points is somewhat
smaller when t/H^ is used. Furthermore, because t/H-t was used in
the presentation of Csnbm data (figs. 21 through 28), it is used in sub-
sequent figures showing incipient-submergence and transition-range
characteristics.
The overlapping abscissa scales used for figures 29 through 37 are
Ji and h/L. It has been explained that the two scales are independ-
ently significant, because h is a scale of reference for the boundary-
layer influence and h/-L is a scale of reference for form influence.
The test results shown on figure 30 indicate that incipient submerg-
A48 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1.0

0.8

n fi i , i i i i i i i i i i i
A. Incipient submergence

. Upper limit of transition range

i i i i i i

Model A-4(P=1.17 ft),

A
Model B(P=0.875 ft)
Model C(P = 0.583 ft)
_x_ Model D (P=0.292 ft)

0.3 0.4 0.5

Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGTJEE 29. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; Influence oi h/P, with t/h as the sub-
mergence ratio.

ence occurs at t/Hi=0.84i when h is greater than about 0.4 feet. Some-
what higher values of t/Hi are indicated for lower values of h. It is
reasonable to believe that the increase in t/Hi is related to the influ-
ence of boundary resistance.
Figure 31 shows the results of tests on three versions of the basic
design. The average curves obtained from the figure are shown as
the characteristics of model A in the subsequent figures in this series.
Figs. 32, 33, and 34 show the results of tests involving different
values of Sp (fig. 32) and Ss (fig. 33) and the special design variations
represented by models K-2, L, and M (fig. 34). From these figures
it is apparent that none of the design variations causes an appreciable
change in the incipient-submergence characteristics of the smooth-
surfaced models. All the data show remarkably good agreement with
the results of tests on the basic design. A little scatter of test points
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A49
i i i r i r i i i i I

A. Incipient submergence

B. Upper limit of transition range

° Model A-4(P= 1.17 ft)

A Model B(P=0.875 ft)
m Model C(P=0.583 ft)
X Model D (P=0.292 ft)

0.4 0.5
Values of /?, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGUEE 30. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of h/P, with t/Hi as the sub-
mergence ratio

at small values of h is believed to be insignificant, because it is recog-

nized that small values of h correspond to small values of t and rela-
tively large experimental errors in t/Hl .
Figures 35, 36, and 37 show the influence of surface roughness. The
results of tests on models AA-2 (fig. 35), AB (fig. 36), and AC (fig.
37) indicate that values of t/ffj. for incipient submergence are smaller
for the rough-surfaced models than for the smooth-surfaced models
represented by model A. Remarkably, the largest deviation from the
model A curve is shown for the screen-roughened model (model AA-2,
fig. 35), and the smallest deviation is shown for the model which is
completely covered with birdshot (model AC, fig. 37). Furthermore,
for model AA-2 the incipient-submergence tailwater ratio varies with
h over the full range of test values. For the birdshot-roughened
models, as for the smooth-surfaced models, the tailwater ratio at in-
A50 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

A-2 A-3 A-4

O 0
Incipient submergence

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Values af /?, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L

FIGURE 31. incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; basic design, model A.

1.0

0.8

0.6
. Incipient submergence

0.4 0.5
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGUKE 32. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of pavement cross-slope, Sp.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A51
i.o
0.8 mo

0.6
A. Incipient submergence

1.0 I T 1 I I I

0.8

^0.6

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
S 0.4
B. Upper limit of transition range
-2 0.8
o
>
0.6

0.4

0.2
Model A (Ss = 0.062), curve from fig. 31
o Model I (Ss = 0.014)
0.0
A Model J(SS = 0.079)
Q Model K-2 (rounded shoulder)
-0.2

-0.4
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGURE 33. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of shoulder slope, S«.

cipient submergence is constant for heads greater than about 0.4 feet.
However, the effect of lower heads is to decrease the ratio for rough-
surfaced models and to increase it for the smooth-surfaced models.
FREE-FLOW TRANSITION RANOE

The free-flow transition range is the range of tailwater levels within

which a given discharge may produce either a plunging flow or a
surface flow on the downstream side of the embankment. The upper
and lower limits of the transition range were determined visually by
gradually raising and lowering the tailwater and observing the level
at which the transitions took place.
The results of tests made to define the free-flow transition range
are shown in the middle and lower parts of figures 29 through 37.
690-195 O - 64 - 8
A52 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

1.0

0.8

I____I____I____I
0.6
A. Incipient submergence
1.0 i i i i i i i r

0.8

0.6

£0.4

: 0. 2 i B. Upper limit of transition range

i I____I I

-3 0.8 i i r
$
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 Model A (basic design), A Model L (trip wire on -

curves from fig. 31 downstream shoulder)
-0.2
© Model K-2 (rounded H Model M (berm on
shoulder) embankment slopes)
-0.4
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L

C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGUEE 34. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of special design variations.

Figure 30, by comparison with figure 29, shows a slight advantage in

using t/H-i to describe the tailwater levels at which the upper and
lower limits occur. In particular, the difference in tailwater levels
which reflects the influence of P on the lower limit is smaller when
t/H-i is used. The data show no significant correlation with P for the
upper limit.
Figure 31 shows the results of tests on three versions of the basic
design. The curves obtained from the figure are shown for compari-
son on the subsequent figures in this series.
Figures 32 and 33 show the results of tests made with different
values of Sp and Ss . In general, these data show good agreement with
the curves obtained from model A. A minor correlation with Sp is
not believed to be significant in view of the results shown on figure 34.
Figure 34 shows the results of tests made on the smooth-surfaced
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A53
1.0 J 1 1 \ i l i l i

0.8

0.6

0.4 -i L i i i i i i i i i
. Incipient submergence

0.8

. 0.6
£S 0-4
</>
o>
"I 0.2
B. Upper limit of transition range
0.8 "l I I I i i i i i i

0.6
__-©-
~ "0"
0.4

Model A (all surfaces smooth), curves

0.2
from fig. 31
__ Model AA-2 screen-wire roughness
0.0 Head dafum of middepf/i of screen wire of

-0.2
o/ crown line
I l l i l i l l
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGUEE 35. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of screen-wire roughness on
all surfaces.

models with special design variations. One of these, model L, with a

small tripwire located at the downstream edge of the downstream
shoulder, was especially designed to demonstrate the sensitivity of
the transition-range limits to obstructions on the downstream side of
the embankment. From the results of the tests on model L it is obvi-
ous that the transition limits cannot be defined with certainty for
many natural prototype conditions. This conclusion is substantiated
by the results of tests on model M, the model with berms on the em-
bankment slopes. As would be expected, however, tests on model
K-2, with the rounded upstream shoulder, agree with the results of
tests on the basic design.
Figures 35, 36, and 37 show the influence of roughness on the
transition-range limits. The results are remarkably similar for the
A54 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

1.0

0.8 J> ___£> ~o- -0--

0.6

0.4
A. Incipient submergence
1.0 n r

0.8

0.6

!8 0.2
_2 B. Upper limit of transition range
CO
> 0.8 "i i i i i i i i i i r

0.6
____0
0.4 .--0--" _--©-
.£>--
,.-13"
0.2 o--'
Model A (all surfaces smooth), curves
0.0 from fig. 31
Model AB (birdshot on shoulders and
-0.2 embankment slopes)
Head dafum af smooth surface at crown line
-0.4
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGUBE 36. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of birdshot roughness on
shoulder and embankment slopes.

three conditions of roughness represented by models AA-2, AB, and

AC. In general, roughness tends to lower the tailwater levels for
both the upper and lower limits. The curves are not well defined for
small values of h because of the larger experimental errors which char-
acterize this condition.
DEPTH AT CROWN LINE FOR FREE FLOW

Figures 38, 39, and 40 show the results of tests made to define the
depth of flow at the crown line, y0, in terms of the theoretical critical
depth for uniform flow, yc, where

(25)

Values of y0 used for this purpose were obtained us the average of

several point-gage measurements of depth at the crown line. Because
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A55
i.o
0.8 ___---® a o cr -° fi-°- o
0.6
A. Incipient submergence

0.8

0.6

^0.4

£0.2 I I I I I I I I I
o> S. Upper limit of transition range
_3
> 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Model A (all surfaces smooth), curves
0.0 from fig. 31
O Model AC (birdshot on all surfaces)
-0.2
Head datum at middepth of birdshot at crown
0 fine
-0.4 j___i___i___i___i___i___i___i___i___i___i i i
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGURE 37. Incipient submergence and free-flow transition range; influence of birdshot roughness on all
surfaces.

\.<L i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

I.I

3 1.0
^-"K A 0 * w 43-x -13-+^^^ -

o 0.9 -
X
<D Model A-2
0.8
1
Model A- 3
0.7 O
Model A-4
0.6 i i i i i i i i i i
00 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0
Values of /),in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L

FIGURE 38. Depth at crown line for free flow; basic design, model A.
 OS
\.<L 1 ,C-
l l l 1 l i 1
i i i i i i i i i i i ii 1 i l l 1

, , . 1.1 O _
<^ _ A
ft ____- *> ^"irBO ^po
=>? 1.0 - 13 UA ^ * ~~ *b -_&^_- 1.0 ' 3
0
O
£ 0.9 0.9 ~ ~
z) Model A (P= 1.17 ft), curve from fig. 38 ^
0 Model B(P=0.875 ft) Model A (Sp =0.014), A Model F(S P = 0.008)
> 0.8 A Model C (P = 0. 583 ft) 0.8 O
curve from fig. 38 H Model G (Sp =0.020)
H Model D(P= 0.292 ft) 0 Model E (Sp = 0.00) X Model H (Sp =0.026)
0.7 0.7 ^
0.0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.O O.i 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 "^
Values of h,\n feet Values of h, in feet g
A. Influence of h/ p L , \ B. Influence of pavement L i feJ
0.10 0.15 0.20 cross slope, Sp o.lO 0.15 0,20 Ed
Values of h/L Values of h/L
1.2 1.2 O
i i i i i i i ii 1 i i iii 1 1 1 1 1 1

fej
^ I.I G
_ Ed
\
4 1 A ,-,
- A~~° ^~ -0 -3 D-- - ,____ 10L fr- ^- O
^ 1.0 TTo~~ -Ail
o a Q ^oCr £> _ O 0 E5
i 0.9 0.9
55
Model A (basic design), A Model L (trip wire on
O Model 1 (ss = 0014) Model A (Ss =0.062), curve from fig. 38 downstream shoulder)
0.8 A Model J (Ss = 0.079) curve from fig. 38 0.8 O Model K-2 (rounded shoulder) H Model M (berm on
H Model K-2 (rounded shoulder) embankment slopes)
o
O.7 i i i i i i i iii ii 0.7
0.0 O.I 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 ^
Values of h, in feet Values of h, in feet H
C. Influence of shoulder slope, Ss | ( : D. Influence of special
i i M
OJO 0.15 0.20 debign variations OJO 0.15 0.20 OP
Values of h/L Values of h/L

FIGURE 39. Depth at crown line for free flow; smooth-surfaced models.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A57
I I i I 1 ' I I I I I I i i i

1.1
o o G O
a 2___
1.0
-J?
Model A (all s jrfaces smooth), O Model AA-2 (screen-wire roughness)
0.9 curve fr om fig. 38 Head datum at middepth of
screen-w;re at crown line
OR i i i 1 I 1 I i I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Values of h, in feet
A Screen-wire roughness
on all surfaces 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Values of h/L

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Valofy
/y ues0c
o>- - -er^-3 ©
io
bo
bU
0 Model AB (birdshot on shoulders
- Model A (all surfaces smooth), and embankment slopes)
curve from fig. 38 Head datum at smooth surface at crown
i i i i i i ill. line .ill
0.0 -9,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Values of h, in feet
B Qirdshot roughness on shoulder
and embankment slopes 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Values of h/L
I 1 I i I I I I I 1 1 1 1 !

0
_ U. _(iL_ .
<3~ o--

<o
O Model AC (birdshot on all surfaces)
£0.9 _ Model A (all surfaces smooth),
curve from fig. 38 Head datum at middepth of birdshot at
0.8 i i i i i i i ! | crown line ( ( (
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Values of h, in feet
C Birdshot roughness on i
all surfaces 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Values of h/L
FIGURE 40. Depth at crown line for free flow; rough-surfaced models.

the roadway level as well as the water-surface level changes rapidly

in the vicinity of the crown line, the measurements are not expected
to be extremely accurate. Nevertheless, the results shown on the fig-
ures are remarkably consistent.
Figure 38 shows the results of tests on the basic design, and the
average curve obtained from that figure is shown on figures 39 and
40. The results of all tests on smooth-surfaced models agree well with
the model A curve. The maximum deviation from the condition
y0 = yc is about 5 percent. This is believed to be adequate confirmation
of the assumption that critical-flow control occurs at the crown line.
Characteristics associated with roughness on the roadway are be-
lieved to be related to the thickness of the boundary layer. Thus, a
small and not unexpected increase in y0/yc characterizes the results
of tests on the rough-surfaced models, particularly model AC. Model
A58 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

AB, with roughness confined to shoulders and embankment slopes,

gave results which agree substantially with those obtained from the
basic, smooth-surfaced model.
For all designs and flow conditions tested, the test results give
reasonably good confirmation of the assumption that critical depth
occurs at or very near the crown line.
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
Tests on 17 different embankment designs indicate that the dis-
charge characteristics are nearly independent of embankment shape.
The designs tested were modifications of a basic design which is typical
of two-lane paved highways. Two features, embankment slope and
roadway width, were identical for all designs. On the basis of the
test results, it is believed that embankment slope is insignificant except
as it affects the roller on the downstream side. The roller can be ex-
pected to have a small influence on the tailwater levels corresponding
to incipient submergence and the free-flow transition range. The
width of the roadway is believed to be significant only to the extent
that it, as well as the discharge and the surface roughness, governs
the head loss and the thickness of the boundary layer at the control
section. These are effects which will have to be correlated with
boundary-layer studies and full-scale prototype tests.
Embankment height, pavement cross-slope, and shoulder slope are
insignificant in relation to free-flow discharge characteristics because
the embankment comprises a critical-flow control section. Thus, be-
cause critical depth occurs very nearly at the crown line for all flows
and shapes tested (see figs. 38, 39, and 40), boundary conditions up-
stream from the crown line have no influence on the free-flow head-
discharge relationship. Similarly, because the effect of downstream
disturbances cannot be transmitted upstream, through the section of
critical flow, boundary conditions downstream from the crown line
have no influence on the free-flow coefficient.
Surface roughness has a small but systematic influence on the prin-
cipal flow characteristics. The effects associated with roughness in
the model are difficult to interpret in terms of natural prototype rough-
ness. Nevertheless,. the relative influence of a maximum range of
prototype roughnesses is believed to be indicated by the results of
the model tests. It is emphasized, furthermore, that the smooth-
surfaced models are believed to be adequately representative of paved
roadways in good condition.
Figure 41 shows a summary of the most important results of the
tests made to determine the free-flow coefficient of discharge. A single
curve represents all smooth-surfaced models (plus model AB, which
was roughened with birdshot on the embankment slopes and shoul-
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A59
3.2

3.1

<o 3.0
"o
£ 2- 9

> 2.8 Ail smooth-surfaced models Birdshot on all surfaces.

________ (model AC)
Screen-wire roughness(model AA-2) Head datum at m/ddepth
2.7 Head datum at middepth of of roughness
roughness
2.6l_
0.0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 O.6 0.7
Values of h , in feet

0.10 O.I5 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L

FIGUBE 41. Summary of the coefficient of discharge for free flow.

ders). Different curves show the results of tests on rough-surfaced

models AA-2 and AC.
The overlapping abscissa scales shown on figure 41 are independ-
ently related to the flow pattern except in the middle range of values.
In the lower range of values of h, boundary resistance dominates the
flow pattern, and h/L is insignificant (except as L is involved in the
loss of energy on the roadway). Conversely, in the upper range of
values of h/L, boundary form and flow curvature dominate the flow
pattern, and h is insignificant.
It is important to observe that the influence associated with small
values of h is a "scale" effect; that is, it is related to the absolute value
of h, whether it be a model or a prototype value. This does not imply
that model and prototype coefficients will be identical for identical
values of h, however, because the characteristics of the boundary layer
at the control section are also related to the absolute value of L.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the model tests, it is believed that effects
associated with values of h less than 0.5 feet seldom would be signifi-
cant in terms of the prototype. Furthermore, it is observed that the
larger values of h/L shown in figure 41 are in excess of the values
usually to be expected in the prototype.
Figure 42 shows a summary of the results of the tests made to
determine the coefficient of discharge for submerged flow. It is note-
worthy that the dependent variable on figure 39 is the simple coeffi-
cient of discharge (eq 9) and not, as usual, the ratio of the sub-
merged-flow coefficient to a corresponding free-flow coefficient. This
procedure is justified on the basis of the observation that the sub-
merged-flow characteristics are independently related to the param-
eters which govern free flow. It is also noteworthy that the abscissa
scale in figure 42 is the ratio of the downstream (tailwater) piezo-
metric head to the upstream (headwater) total-energy head. This
A60 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.21 i i i i i i i i i i i

2.8

2.6

<o 2.4
"o All smooth-surfaced models

K 2.2 Screen-wire roughness ( model AA-2)

Head datum at middepth of roughness
> 2.0
Birds hot on shoulders and embankment slopes
(model AB)

i Birdshot on all surfaces ( model AC)

Head datum at middepth of roughness

1.4

1.2
0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Values of t/H^

FIGUBE 42. Summary of the coefficient of discharge for submerged flow.

ratio, unlike the commonly used ratio of piezometric heads, results in

a relationship with Oaubm which is virtually free of correlation with
embankment height.
A single curve on figure 42 represents the submerged-flow charac-
teristics of all the smooth-surfaced designs. Whereas the results of
some of the tests deviated considerably from this smooth curve, the
results of other tests showed conclusively that the relationship is
extremely sensitive to roughness, irregularities, or obstructions on
the downstream side of the embankment. Thus, in view of many
uncertainties regarding the occurrence and effect of natural prototype
features such as guardrails, windrowed gravel, and vegetation, it is
believed to be impractical to seek a very accurate, general solution for
submerged flow.
The influence of roughness on #8Ubm is shown by the three dashed
curves on figure 42. These curves are believed to indicate the maxi-
mum range of the influence of roughness, although it is difficult to
relate the model-test results to natural prototype conditions.
Figure 43 shows a summary of the results of tests made to deter-
mine the tailwater levels corresponding to incipient submergence and
the free-flow transition range. The dependent variable in figure 43,
t/Hi, is the same as the independent variable used in figure 42. The
overlapping abscissa scales are the same as the corresponding scales
in figure 41.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A61

Figure 43 indicates that one curve can be used with sufficient

accuracy to describe the incipient-submergence and upper-limit tail-
water ratios for all smooth-surfaced designs. A correlation with P
shown for the lower-limit tailwater ratio is indicated on figure 43(7

1.0 i i i i \ i r

0.8

0.6
0.4 i i i i i i
A. Incipient submergence
1.0 i i r i r i T

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
B. Upper limit of transition range
1.0
Model D (P-262ft,
0.8 prototype)

0.6

0.4

0.2 All smooth-surfaced models

Screent-wire roughness ( model A A-2)

0.0 A Head datum at middepth of roughness
(/> = !0.5ft, ____
-0.2 prototype) Birdshot on shoulders and embankment slopes-
(model AB)
-0.4
Birdshot on all surfaces ( mo del AC)
-0.6 Head datum at. middepth of roughness
Note P- 10.5ft for all rough-surfaced models
-0.8
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Values of /?, in feet
I__________________L__
0.10 0.15 0.20
Values of h/L
C. Lower limit of transition range

FIGURE 43. Summary of incipient submergence and free-flow transition range.

 A62 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

by limiting curves for the values of P tested. It is observed that the

influence of P was not investigated separately for the rough-surfaced
designs. Curves showing the results of tests on the rough-surfaced
models are shown on the figure.
It should be emphasized tha the total-energy head, H^ is involved
in the basic discharge equation (eq 8) as well as the tail water ratio,
t/Hi. Also, whereas the solution for discharge requires a trial solu-
tion for Hi, the use of h instead of #1 will ordinarily result in a very
small error in the first-trial solution.
It is pertinent in this summary and evaluation of the model test
resultsj:o observe that, under certain circumstances, the coefficients
and ratios used to describe the results are critically influenced by the
location of the headwater- and tailwater-level measuring sections.
In particular, for high values of h/P, the piezometric level used to
determine h is influenced by head losses in the approach channel and
flow curvature in the vicinity of the embankment. Thus, in order
for the results to be applied accurately to similar model or prototype
embankments, the measuring sections should correspond in location to
the gage positions shown on figure 7.
INFLUENCE OF THE BOUNDARY LAYER ON FREE-FLOW
CHARACTERISTICS
OBJECTIVE
In the preceding pages, dimensional reasoning and a simple dis-
charge equation were used in an empirical analysis of laboratory tests
of embankment models. The results provide a practical solution for
the discharge characteristics of a variety of embankment forms and
surface roughnesses. Like all empirical solutions, this solution is
limited in usefulness by the scope of the tests on which it is based.
The second major objective of the investigation was the theoretical
and experimental definition of the relationship between free-flow
discharge and the boundary layer on the roadway. Here attention is
restricted to free flow because the boundary layer is significant in re-
lation to discharge control only when critical flow occurs on the
roadway. The results of the studies made to accomplish the second
objective are described in the following pages.
The ultimate goal of this part of the investigation could be de-
scribed as the development of a general, analytical equation of dis-
charge for free flow. More realistically, however, it is to test the
validity of the approximate discharge equation (eq 19) in which
8q and A are measures of the influence of boundary resistance. The
minimum goal is a better understanding of some of the factors which
govern .he flow pattern. An incidental benefit is a considerable
amount of data on boundary layers in accelerated, free-surface flows.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A63

DEFINITION OP 5 a AND X
The two quantities which represent the influence of boundary resist-
ance in equation 19 <are 8q and A. The displacement thickness, 8g, is a
measure of the influence of the boundary layer of the continuity equa-
tion. From equation 11 (p. 17) , for a boundary-layer flow such as that
illustrated in figure 6,
g= rudz=(y-S,)U, (26)
Jo
from which,
f=l jV tO dz= l-g dz, (27)

or, because u=U when 0 exceeds the nominal boundary-layer thickness

From equation 28 it is apparent that 8q depends on the velocity distri-

bution in the boundary layer.
For intermediate values of the Reynolds number, others (Bauer,
1954; Halbronn, 1954; Delleur, 1957) have concluded that the velocity
distribution in partially developed boundary-layer flows in open chan-
nels can be described by an equation of the power form,

u ,*v (29)

in which n is an exponent which must be evaluated by experiment. If

equation 29 is substituted in equation 28, integration yields a simple
equation for 8?,
a«=(-Tr) 5 > (3°)

which, of course, is applicable only when the velocity distribution can

be described with an equation of the power form.
The velocity-head factor, A, is a measure of the influence of bound-
ary resistance on the one-dimensional energy equation. It is defined
by the relation.
X=JZ!_a Yl, (31)
2g 2g
which is illustrated in figure 6. In this equation aF2/(2<7) is the true
average-velocity head, which is given by the equation
v =~-
1 r«v*dz. (32)
2gq Jo
A64 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

From equations 31 and 32 and the continuity relationship (eq 26),

_ 1 fv 2 2
2.<7<Z Jo
or, from equations 26 and 33,

X=l _ I I jj\ * VTT) \^z - (^

(It is of incidental interest that the integral in equation 34 is equivalent

to 8e, the "energy thickness" of the boundary layer. Thus,

It is now apparent that A, unlike 8q depends on q and y as well as the

velocity distribution.
In equation 34, the ratio which precedes the integral is proportional
to a Froude number. When the flow is critical, the value of the
ratio is approximately 1/2. Therefore, at the crown line, where the
flow is very nearly critical for all conditions tested (see figures 38,
39, and 40), an adequate approximation is

or, because u U when z is greater than 8,

It is emphasized that the coefficient 1/2 in equations 35 and 36 re-

stricts their use to the critical-flow section.
For the conditions which warrant the assumption of an n- power
velocity distribution (eq 29) , equation 36 gives

» (37)
or, from equation 30,
(38)
BOUNDARY LAYERS IN ACCELERATED MOTION
The most promising solution for the growth of the boundary layer
on the roadway is based on von Karman's semi-analytical equation for
boundary layers in accelerated motion (Schlicting, 1955). The equa-
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A65

tion is derived from an application of the momentum principle. It

presumes a hydrostatic normal-pressure distribution, and it ignores
the momentum of the turbulence. It has been substantiated reasonably
well for flat plates and circular pipes.
The von Karman equation can be written in the form

75^' (39)
pU2 ds

in which, in addition to the symbols previously defined, TO is the shear

stress at the boundary, s is distance along the boundary in the direction
of mean motion, and 8m is the "momentum thickness" of the boundary
layer. Defined by the deficiency of momentum flux which results
from the formation of the boundary layer, 8m is
//* 0
x /ti // /)/ \\
Sm =\ ^(l-£)dz. (40)
Jo -U \ U/
For an fi-power velocity distribution (eq 29), equation 40 gives

which, with equation 30, gives

(42>
From equation 42 it is apparent that 8m as well as A (eq 38) can be
defined in terms of 8q. For convenience, therefore, the von Karman
equation can be converted to the form

dS, ~ /2n±3\
{ }
\2U2 ds

which, of course, is limited by the assumption that the velocity can

be described with an equation of the power form.
The left-hand member of equations 39 and 43 is a nondimensional
shear coefficient, c/. In general, cf is a function of the boundary-layer
Reynolds number and the relative roughness,

TO
(44)
(AA\

in which v=^/p is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. Approxima-

tions for Cf have been derived from analogies with uniform flow in
A66 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

pipes. One such approximation, for smooth boundaries only, is the

equation identified with Blasius,
/rr*\-o.25
C/=0.0225 } > (45)

which is based on the assumption of a 1/7-power velocity distribution.

Equation 45 has been substantiated in application to smooth, flat plates
and an intermediate range of Reynolds numbers. Corresponding
equations for* rough boundaries have been based on the von Karman
logarithmic velocity-distribution equation.
As an implicit equation for the displacement-thickness gradient
(dBq/ds), equation 43 is limited mainly by the assumption of an
n-power velocity distribution. However, its integration, to get 8q as
a function of s, depends on experimental evaluation of n, U. and
dU/ds, as well as TO. Thus, the most promising means of obtaining a
general solution for 8q is fraught with potential obstacles. The infor-
mation needed to appraise these obstacles must be obtained from meas-
urements of boundary-layer characteristics under a wide variety of
boundary and flow conditions.
BOUNDARY-LAYER MEASUREMENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The primary purpose of the boundary-layer measurements made as

a part of this investigation was to test the validity of the discharge
equation (eq 19) which contains 8q and A. A simple verification of
equation 19 could have been accomplished with measurements of the
velocity distribution at the crown line only. Aside from substantiat-
ing certain assumptions regarding the influence of boundary resist-
ance, however, verification by direct determination of the crown-line
values of 8q and A would lead to nothing more than an empirical solu-
tion for q. This solution, like simpler ones involving only the coeffi-
cient of discharge (eq 7 or 8), would be limited in usefulness by the
range of conditions actually reproduced in the laboratory. On the
other hand, if equation 19 is valid, the ideal solution for q would in-
volve the computation of 8q and A from a general equation which de-
scribes the growth of the boundary layer on the roadway. The ideal
solution would be applicable to roadways of all widths, embankments
of all shapes- within reason, and a full, practical range of discharges.
With this ideal as a possible result, the experiments included sufficient
vertical velocity traverses and piezometric profile measurements to
define the boundary layer between the upstream edge of the upstream
shoulder and a point downstream from the control section near the
crown line.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A67
Tests were made on four different models, A-l, K-l, AA-1 and KA.
The scope of the tests is shown in table 2, and a summary of the
velocity measurements is shown in table 4 in the section "Experi-
mental Data." Data used in this part of the report were obtained
from tests made 'by Davidian. To a large extent, the tests duplicate
and confirm the results of tests made earlier by Sigurdsson.

TABLE 2. Scope of boundary-layer tests made by Davidian1

Model Test Head, A, Discharge, g, Number of

design No. in model in model velocity Remarks
(ft) (cfs per ft) traverses

A-l_____ 1 0.084 0.071 8 Basis design 2, smooth surface.

2 . 183 . 234 8 Basic design, smooth surface.
3 .301 . 503 10 Do.
4 . 475 1.01 10 Do.
5 . 632 1. 58 10 Do.
K-1--... 1 . 083 .070 5 Rounded shoulder 3, smooth
surface.
2 . 183 . 238 6 Rounded shoulder, smooth sur-
face.
3 . 301 .511 5 Do.
4 .475 1. 02 6 Do.
5 .632 1. 59 6 Do.
AA-1____ 1 . 183 . 225 10 Basic design, screen roughness.
2 . 476 . 991 10 Do.
KA___.__ 1 . 183 . 226 6 Rounded shoulder, screen
roughness.
2 .475 . 991 6 Do.

1 Davidian, Jacob, 1959, Influence of the boundary layer on embankment-shaped weirs: Georgia Inst.
Technology, Master's degree thesis, 97 p., 38 figs.
2 See fig. 9 for details of basic design.
3 Rounded transition between upstream embankment and shoulder surfaces, as shown in fig. 10,4. All
other shape details as in fig. 9.

Design details of the models are given in table 1 and figures 9 and
10. Model A-l is the basic design. Model AA-1 is the same em-
bankment section, but with screen roughness added. Details regard-
ing the screen and the method of use are given on page 21. Model K
is a design especially created for the boundary-layer tests. As shown
in figure 1(L4, it involved a rounded transition between the upstream
embankment and shoulder surfaces. The purpose of the rounding
was to prevent flow separation at ohe upstream edge of the shoulder.
Tests were also made on this embankment design with screen rough-
ness added (model KA).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The basic data for this part of the report are the results of the
velocity measurements which are summarized in table 4. Typical
data illustrating the growth of the boundary layer on the upstream
side of the roadway are shown in figures 44 and 45. Figure 44 shows
the results of tests on models A-l and AA-1, each with a discharge
 Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta.
Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. 1.00 1.30 1.65 1.85 2.00 O5
00060.10 0.25 0.40 00

23| I 234 I 234 I 2 3 !\ I 2 34 I 234

Values of u, in feet per second ! Crown line
Sta. 0.67 Sta. 1.67

A Model A-l, test 4

Values of u, in feet per second

Sta. 0.67 Sta. 1.67

B Model AA-I, test 2

FIGURE 44. Velocity distribution in boundary layer on upstream side of roadway; basic design, typical
discharge.
 Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta.
0.20 °- 60 1.10 1.40 1.65 |.80

a> 111 ,
__ _ __ - (--
* \\\
\
.*1
^ 11
." O
Flow N 1 111 e CD
i
> "5 5 J\ . W
<n 111 ' j^
a>
'
- O
s
>---~l 23 1 234 ! 1 2 34 2 34 2 3 \1 2 34 H
-^-"i \ Values of w, in feet per second i-rown me n
^ ! Sta 0.67 Sta. .67 ^
Sta -°- 00 A Model K-l, test 4 §

&

Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. S

0.20 0.60 1.10 1.40 1.65 1.80 £
Q
<s |0 °CQ
; 1 .' .'

Flow
-" 71
x 1 OrfH t .
ic
* N 1 1 1 5 .
r o
1 YU
^*~~~ \ 23 1 234 j 234 1 234 23\x^ 234
*
g
Values of u, in feet per second i Crawn line W
^ i Sta.0.67 Sta. .67 ^
Sta. 0.00
fi Model KA, test 2
FIGURE 45. Velocity distribution in boundary layer on upstream side of roadway; rounded shoulder, ^.
typical discharge. 05
CO
A70 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

(q) of approximately 1 cubic foot per second per foot. Figure 45

shows the results of similar tests on models K-l and KA.
The boundary layer is indicated in figures 44 and 45 by velocity
profiles which 'are superposed on a silhouette of the embankment cross
section. The location of the traverse section for each velocity profile
is designated by a station number which is a measure of its distance
from the nominal intersection of the upstream embankment slope
and shoulder surface. The crown line for all models is at station 1.67.
Thus, station 0 for the models with rounded shoulders (models K-l

0.001
0.50.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 .0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0
Values of u, in feet per second Values of u, in feet
per second
A. Basic embankment design, model A-1 B. Basic design with screen
roughness on all surfaces,
model AA-I

FIGURE 46. Boundary-layer velocity distribution near crown line (station 1.65), models A-1 and AA-1.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A71
and KA) is on the roundings, at a distance 1.67 feet upstream from
the crown line. Measurements were made at station 1.65 instead of
station 1.67 in order to avoid the influence of the separation zone
which occurs on the downstream side of the crown line.
Figures 46 and 47 show velocity profiles at station 1.65 for all the
tests made on models A-l, AA-1, K-l, and KA. The profiles, like
those in figures 44 and 45, are plotted on logarithmic coordinates.

0.001
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0
Values of u, in feet per second Values of u, in feet
per second
A. Rounded upstream shoulder, B. Rounded shoulder, screen
smooth surfaces, model K-l roughness on all surfaces,
model KA

FIGURE 47. Boundary-layer velocity distribution near crown line (station 1.65), models K-l and KA.
A72 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

Straight lines are fitted to the measurements in the boundary layer,

and the intersections of the straight lines with the vertical lines
signifying the magnitude of U are marked as the outer limit of the
nominal boundary layer. The fit of the straight lines with the points
in the boundary layer is an indication of the validity of the assump-
tion that the velocity distribution can be described with an equation
of the power form, as in equation 29,

(29)

and the slope of the straight line is a measure of n in that equation.

Values of 8 and l/n obtained from figures 46 and 4Y are shown
plotted as a function of h in figure 48. (Here l/n is used to avoid
fractions.)
Values of 8 and l/n obtained from figures 44 and 45 by the same
procedure are shown plotted in figure 49 as a function of s.
With some exceptions, notably at stations near the upstream edge
of the shoulder, the velocity distribution in the boundary layer ap-
pears to be reasonably approximated by an equation of the power

I I I I I I I 1 I I

A. Nominal boundary-layer thickness , 6

S- --sL Mode MA -1 ~~ ~~
/

Q ____I____I____i____i____I____i____I____i____I____I____I____L
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Values of /?, in feet
B. Quantity \/n in power equation

FIGURE 48. Boundary layer near crown line (station 1.65).

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A73
Flow
-Origin of 5 distance

60

50

40

30

20-
o 0
Model A-l , test 4 Model AA-I, test 2

Model K-l, test 4 Mode! KA , test 2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Values of 5, in feet
A. Nominal boundary-layer thickness,8
Flow,
-Origin of 5 distance Crown line

12

10

O Q
Model A-l, test 4 Model AA-I , test 2
A X
Model K-l, test 4 Model KA , test 2
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Values of 5, in feet
B. Quantity \/n in power equation

FIGURE 49. Boundary layer on upstream side of roadway for a typical discharge.

form. However, as shown in figures 48 and 49, 8 and \/n are not
clearly defined as functions of s and h (or q).
For moderately large discharges, the boundary-layer thickness
grows most rapidly in the vicinity of the shoulder. The rate of
growth near the crown line is very small. Values \/n are smaller
for the rough-surfaced models (AA-1 and KA) than for the smooth-
surfaced models (A-l and K-l), except at small values of h (fig.
A74 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

485). For larger values of #, the smootH-surfaced models show

values of l/n approaching the value 7, which is commonly used for
smooth pipes and flat plates.
Values of 8 for the smooth-surfaced models indicate an expected
decrease in boundary-layer thickness with rounding of the upstream
shoulder. This result is attributed to the elimination of the separation
zone and the consequent displacement of the boundary layer at the
upstream edge of the shoulder. However, the largest values of 8
shown on figure 49J. are those which were measured on the round-
shouldered model when it was covered with screen-wire roughness.
In general, of course, the effect of roughness is to increase the thick-
ness of the boundary layer. It is suggested that the contradiction
which is related to the combined influence of rounding the roughness
might be the result of a difference in tautness of the screen wire used
on models AA-1 and KA.
In view of the inconsistencies in the data shown in figures 48 and
49, no attempt has been made to draw smooth curves through the
plotted points.
COMPUTATION OF C BASED ON BOUNDARY-LAYER
MEASUREMENTS
Verification of the analysis which led to equation 19 requires that
values of 8q and A at the crown line be determined from the boundary-
layer velocity measurements. Two methods of evaluating 8q and A
were used. One method, which was evolved from the assumption of
an n-power velocity distribution, is suggested by equations 30 and 38,
which require prior evaluation of n from the velocity profiles shown in
figures 46 and 47. The results based on this method of computation
are shown by the solid symbols in figure 50. Here the quantity (8q A),
which appears in equation 19, is plotted as a function of h.
The second and most accurate method of evaluating 8q and A re-
quires integration of equations 28 and 36. This was accomplished as
a numeral approximation. Values of u/U were plotted on rectilinear
graph paper, smooth curves were drawn through the points, mean
values of u/U were read from the smooth curves, and the integrals
represented by equations 28 and 36 were evaluated as the summation
of finite increments. Values of (8q \) computed by this method are
shown in figure 50 with open symbols.
Values of (8q A) computed by the two different methods agree
reasonably well. The paucity of data did not permit accurate defini-
tion of the relation between (8ri ~\) and h for the rough-surfaced
models, but a constant value of (8q -\) =0.001+ foot was quite well
defined for the two smooth-surfaced models. For the purpose of
testing the validity of equation 19, a straight-line relationship between
h and (8q A) was assumed for the rough-surfaced models. The
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A75
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
...... .. j , .. , Note: Open symbols for sq and x
o . Model A-l o . Model AA-1 obtained from numerical?ntegra .
+- 5
0) .A Model K-l o» Model KA tion; solid symbols for Sq and x
= 4 obtained from power-equation
approximation.
o
Rough-surfaced models AA-1, KA
T
.^2

mooth-surfaced models A-l, K-l

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Values of h, in feet

FIGURE 50. Values of (Sq X) from boundary-layer velocity measurements.

straight line is shown in figure 50. It is observed that the unit divi-
sions on the (Sq A) scale in figure 50 represent differences of only
0.001 foot, and that the approximation represented by the straight line
is not critical in determining the validity of equation 19.
Figure 51 shows a comparison of experimentally determined and
computed values of the coefficient of discharge for the smooth- and
rough-surfaced models. The experimentally determined values were
obtained from the summary curves in figure 41. The computed values
were determined from equation 20,

(20)

in which C is the coefficient of discharge defined by equation 19.

Values of (Sq A) were determined from figure 50.
The magnitude of the discrepancies between the experimental and
computed curves in figure 51 is a measure of the validity of equa-
tion 20. The disparity of values of G is reasonably small in the middle
range of values of h. For smaller values of 7i, computed values of C
are larger than experimental values. For the largest values of A, com-
puted values of G are smaller. The difference in G values at small
values of h can be attributed, perhaps, to a fault in the analytical
treatment of boundary resistance. The difference at larger values of h
is believed to be associated with boundary-form effects or, specifically,
flow curvature at the control section. Thus, this difference is believed
to be related to the magnitude of li/L rather than the magnitude of h.
The analysis which led to equations 19 and 20 did not involve the
A76 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

3.2 T I I I I 1 I

Computed, models A-l and K-l

3.1

3.0 ____ Experimental, all smooth-surfaced

models (fig. 41 )
2.9

,- 2.8 I I i I I I I I I I L
A Smooth-surfaced models

1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1
Computed, models AA-I ond KA C=3i°9
3.1

3.0
^,~^~~~'~' Experimental, model AA-2 (fig. 41)
2.9

2.8
) O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Values of h, in feet
i i i
0.10 0.15 0.20 025
Values of h/L
B Models with screen-wire roughness

FIGTJBE 61. Values of C computed from equation 20 and figure 50.

influence of flow curvature. Consequently, it is not surprising that

discrepancies due to this influence are indicated by the comparison
shown in figure 51.
The discrepancies between experimental and computed values of C,
especially at small values of /i, were somewhate greater than was ex-
pected. Therefore, a review of the analysis is pertinent.
MODIFIED DISCHARGE EQUATION
In the process of evolving equations 19 and 20 from the one-dimen-
sional energy equation (p. 17), the term HL, which represents the loss
in head between the headwater measuring section and the crown line,
was assumed to be negligible. It was particularly convenient to
neglect HL because it is not independently related to the discharge
characteristics of the embankment. Furthermore, it is difficult to
evaluate, because it depends on the location of the measuring section
and the resistance characteristics of the upstream channel.
For the model tests reported herein the headwater was measured at
a section which was relatively close to the embankment. Thus, HL
was very small. Nevertheless, it is recognized that neglecting HL has
the effect of making values of C computed from equation 20 larger
than they would be if fIL were considered. Moreover, the relative
effect of neglecting HL increases as h decreases. These observations
suggest that neglecting IIL is a possible cause of the disparity of com-
puted and experimental values of C at lower values of h in figure 51.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A77

Not only is HL difficult to compute, but it is also difficult to measure

accurately in the laboratory. From the magnitude of the discrepancies
shown in figure 51 it is apparent that the effect attributable to HL is
small and, therefore, that HL in the model tests was a very small quan-
tity. Thus, when it is computed as the difference between total-head
quantities determined from pitot-tube and point-gage measurements,
the experimental error in HL is likely to be excessive. This conclusion
was confirmed by attempts to determine HL from the model test data.
As an alternative and admittedly empirical method of handling HL
in equation 14, it is observed that A is another small term in the
equation and that the assumption of equal magnitudes of HL and A
would result in their mutual elimination from subsequent equations.
The resulting counterparts of equations 19 and 20 involve the relative
magnitude of 8^ alone:

g=3.09 #,

and,
(47)

Equation 47, like equation 20, is readily tested by comparison with the
experimentally determined values of C.
Values of 8q corresponding to the values of (8f/ A) in figure 50 are
shown in figure 52. The relationship between 8^ and h is not well
defined, but the straight-line approximations shown on the figure are
adequate to test the validity of equation 47.
Figure 53 shows a comparison of experimentally determined values
of C from figure 41 with computed values of C from equation 47. At
small values of A, for which the influence of boundary resistance is a
maximum, the comparable curves are in substantial agreement. Dis-
crepancies at large values of J\/L demonstrate, again, the influence
which has been attributed to flow curvature at the control section.
Thus, for the conditions represented by the models, it is concluded
that the influence of boundary resistance is effectively accounted for in
equations 46 and 47. It is emphasized that the test conditions include
the location of the headwater gage, and that the effect of this condition
is reflected in the experimentally determined values of C.
INFLUENCE OF THE SIDEWALL BOUNDARY LAYER
Values of q used to determine C from the model test results were
computed from equation 24,

2=' (24)
A78 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

ii I I i i i i i \ i i f i r
° Model A-l
10 ° Model AA-1
A * Model K-l
9 o » Model KA
Note: Open symbol for Sq obtained
8 from numerical integration; solid
4-> _
symbol for &q obtained from power-
Q>
QJ
7 equation approximation
c
~ 6 Rough-surfaced models AA-1, KA
o
.i
^5

o 4
(/>
<D
__3
Model K-l
> 3

1
j__i__i__i__i i i j_ J____I____|____I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Values of h, in feet

FIGURE 52. Values of Sg from boundary-layer velocity measurements.

3.2
Experimental, all smooth-surfaced
3.1 _ Computed, model K~ models (fig. 41 K________- ""' 3.09
2^±

3.0
"Computed, model A-|
2.9

A Smooth-surfaced models
3.2
3.1
3.0

2.9
2.8 1 ! 1

0 O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Values of /?, in feet

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Values of h/L
B. Models with screen-wire roughness

FIGURE 53. Values of C computed from equation 47 and figure 52.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A79

in which B is the average width of the test flume in the vicinity of the
control section. It is recognized that this procedure ignores the effect
of the boundary layer which occurs on both sides of the flume. Thus,
if 8'q is defined as the displacement thickness on the side walls, at the
control section, a better definition of q is

The experiments made for this investigation did not include meas-
urements of 8'q. It might be assumed, however, that values of 8'q are
commensurate with values of Sq measured for the round-shouldered,
smooth-surfaced model. (The walls of the flume are plate glass.)
Thus, a reasonable approximation of an average value of S'a, corre-
sponding to the average value of Sq for model K-l on figure 52, is
0.003 foot. The corresponding error in the computation of q (and C]
is indicated by the ratio

Q
B _3.010-2(0.003)
=0.998. (49)
Q ~ 3.010

Therefore, in the experimentally determined values of C used in the

report, the average relative error due to neglecting the sidewall
boundary layer is estimated to be approximately 0.2 percent. This is
less than the experimental error to be expected.
GENERAL SOLUTION FOB 5 a

Equation 47 has been substantiated as an effective means of account-

ing for the influence of the boundary layer on free discharge. How-
ever, the verification shown in figure 53 is based on measured
crown-line values of Sq. Practical use of equation 47 requires a con-
venient, general solution for 8q. Anything less than this would result
in an empirical discharge solution of limited usefulness and consider-
ably less convenience than that which involves the simple, experi-
mentally determined coefficient of discharge.
Equation 43 was proposed as a basis for a general solution for &q .
Potential obstacles to its use are associated with the evaluation of TO
(or <?/),?},£/, and dU/dx. It is now possible to appraise these obstacles
on the basis of the boundary-layer measurements. The following
observations are concerned with the practicality of integrating equa-
tion 43 to obtain 8q as a function of s:
1. Equation 43 involves the assumption that the velocity distribution
in the boundary layer can be described with an equation of the
A80 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

power form. In general, the measurements confirm the use of

this assumption for rough-surfaced as well as smooth-surfaced
models. Values of n are not clearly defined as functions of s and
h (or q). Nevertheless, for all but the smallest values of A, and
for virtually the full distance upstream from the crown line,
figures 48B and 49B support the use of a different, approximate,
constant value of n for each of the models tested. Whereas the
assumption of constant values of n facilitates the integration of
equation 43 for specific models, the substantial variation of n
with shape and roughness is an obstacle to a general solution.
2. Figures 44, 45, and 49A show that a secondary layer of consider-
able thickness exists at station 0 (at the nominal intersection of
the upstream shoulder and embankment surfaces). The data
show that the thickness of the layer at station 0 varies with model
design and discharge, and that it is sensitive to the occurrence of
a separation zone immediately downstream from station 0. These
observations confirm the assumption that the effective origin of
the boundary layer is upstream from station 0. Although the
data are inadequate to provide a general method of accurately
determining the location of the origin, it is observed that the
thickness of the layer changes very rapidly in the vicinity of
station 0 and very slowly in the vicinity of the crown line. Con-
sequently, the use of an approximate origin probably would result
in a relatively small error in crown-line values of 8q computed
from equation 43.
3. The experimental data show that the boundary layer is displaced
by the separation zone which occurs at station 0, especially in
models A-l and AA-1. The thickness of the layer downstream
from the point of reattachment is increased as a result of this dis-
placement, but the increase, as indicated by a comparison of
boundary layers on models A-l and K-l, diminishes with dis-
tance from station 0. The influence on crown-line values of 8q is
not believed to be substantial.
4. The boundary-layer measurements do not provide a direct means
of evaluating the effects of curvilinear flow in relation to the
assumptions made in deriving equation 43. This influence re-
mains an unknown but probably minor source of error in the
application of the equation to the computation of V
5. Integration of equation 43 requires evaluation of the relationship
between U and -<?. Figures 54 and 55 show the experimentally
determined values from the boundary-layer tests. For each test
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A81
N Origin of s distance Crown line

4.5
4.0
-3.5

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
xJ.Model A-l
3.5
3.0
CO
CD 2.5
J3
O
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Val ues of s, in feet
B. M o d e I A A - 1
FIGURE 54. Velocity outside the boundary layer , model of basic design.
A82 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5

1 2.0
o
1.5 ^
Q.
1.0
O)
O)
M
i____I____i____i____I____I
0.5
A Model K-l
3.5

~B
J
3.0
> 2.5

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
J____I____I____I____I____I____I J____I____I
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Valu es of s , in feet
B. Model KA
FIGURE 55. Velocity outside the boundary layer, model with rounded upstream shoulder.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A83

the relationship is described approximately by an equation in the

straight-line form,
U=U0+m8, (50)
in which U0 is the velocity outside the boundary layer at station
0, and m is the slope of a straight line fitted to the plotted points,
Comparison of the data shown in figures 54 and 55 indicates
that m varies with the shape of the upstream shoulder, whereas
it is virtually independent of discharge and embankment rough-
ness. (Thus, m is approximately 0.5 for most tests on models
A-l and AA-1 and 0.3 for tests 011 models K-l and KA.) The
quantity £70, of course, varies with the discharge. It also varies
with the shape of the upstream shoulders; but it, too, is virtually
independent of embankment roughness. The form of equation 50
does not preclude integration of equation 43. However, because
U0 varies with discharge, the computation of q by means of
equations 43 and 46 would require a tedious successive-
approximations procedure.
6. The principal effects of embankment roughness are related to its
influence on cf in equation 44 and and the exponent n in the
velocity-distribution equation. Equation 43 does not account
specifically for the influence of roughness, and the experimental
data do not provide a general means of evaluating that influence
in terms of a nondimensional relative-roughness parameter.
Consequently, it is impossible to use the model test data to deter-
mine the effect of roughness in the prototype.
The foregoing observations lead to the conclusion that a discharge
equation which depends on equation 43 for the crown-line value of 8q
is neither general nor practical. In summary, the decisive obstacles
revealed by the experimental data are: (a) n varies substantially
with both boundary form and roughness and, less critically, with s
an<# q; (b) U0 varies with boundary form and discharge; and (c) m
varies with boundary form. Furthermore, the data are inadequate to
provide a general solution for r0 in terms of discharge and relative
roughness. Whereas the combination of these obstacles precludes a
satisfactory general solution for q, it neither disproves nor proves the
validity of equation 43 as applied to embankment-shaped weirs. For
academic interest, at least, the validity test is a logical, terminal ob-
jective of the boundary-layer measurements.
On the assumption that the Blasius equation for cf (page 66) is
applicable to the smooth-surfaced models, equations 30 and 45 can be
substituted in equation 43 to give

$+030 GW %
A84 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

which is an implicit equation for the displacement-thickness gradient

(d8q/ds), in terms of the local values of n, £7, 8a, and dU/ds at dis-
tance s from the origin of the boundary layer. If equation 50 is
substituted for £7, equation 51 can be integrated, whence

m* 1
in which,

#i=0.028(2n+l)

and,
(54)
The tests selected for verification of equation 52 are test 4, model
A^l, and test 4, model K-l, tests which previously were used to repre-
sent the smooth-surfaced models in figure 49. The experimental data
required for the evaluation of equation 52 were obtained from figures
48, 49, 54, and 55. For comparison, with computed values of 8q from
equation 52, measured values of 8 from figure 49 were converted to
values of 8Q by means of equation 30, using average values of n. Values
of £70, m, and 1/n used in equation 52, and values of n used in the
conversion of 8 are shown on figure 56.
Figure 56 shows a comparison of the computed and experimentally
determined values of 8f/. The s-origin for the values computed from
equation 52' was assumed to correspond with station 0 for the boundary -
Jayer measurements. For this condition, experimental values of 8q
compare favorably with the computed values at the crown-line station.
Experimental values are larger than computed values at upstream
stations, and values for model A-l show the effect of the separation
zone at station 0. A small s-distance displacement of the computed
curve would cause it to show good agreement with the K-l curve
over a large part of the roadway. This displacement could be defined
as the distance from station 0 to the effective origin of the boundary
layer for that test. However, it is observed that only the crown-line
value of 8q is involved in the discharge equation (eq. 46), and the
crown-line value is best defined by the computed curve when its origin
is* at station 0, as in figure 56.
The comparison shown on figure 56 is limited evidence of the valid-
ity of the analysis which led to equations 43 and 52. Nothing more
is expected from this phase of the 'investigation, which previously
was acknowledged to be of academic interest only.
DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A85

00
A86 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

COMPUTATION OF C FOB THE PROTOTYPE

The search for a general solution for boundary-layer growth was

previously (p. 79) related to the need for a means of computing the
crown-line value of 8q for prototype embankments of various forms,
widths, and roughnesses. Equation 52 already has been described as
impractical as a general solution for the boundary layer. Further-
more, the approximate confirmation of model values shown on figure
56 is limited to a small range of model conditions. Nevertheless, this
limited evidence of the validity of equation 52 is encouragement for
an attempt to compute G for prototype embankments similar to the
basic, smooth-surfaced model.
Prototype values of 8q were computed from equation 52 with
m=0.3, l/n=7, and values of Z70 equal to the square root of the proto-
type-model length ratio (9:1) times the corresponding model values
of Z70 from figure 55A. Using these values of 8g, values of G were
computed from equation 47. The results are shown by the solid line
in figure 57.

O.tL i i i i i i i i i i i i i

3.1

'o
3.0 -

2.9 Computed for prototype from

rj
equations 47and 52
2.8

2.7 From tests on smooth-surfaced

models (fig. 4!)
? R 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 !..._
2345
Values of /?, in feet (prototype)

0.14 0.18 0.22

Values of h/L
FIGURE 57. Computed prototype values and measured model values of C, smooth-surfaced embankments.

Considering the limitations of the data on model boundary layers

and the lack of data on model-prototype conformity, the solid-line
curve shown in figure 57 is of doubtful accuracy. Nevertheless, it is
reasonable to describe the curve as an estimate of the relative in-
fluence, of the boundary layer on a 9 :l-scale prototype which corre-
sponds in design to the smooth-surfaced models.
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A87

Shown for comparison in figure 57 is the curve from figure 41

which is the average for all smooth-surfaced models. Actually, the
model curve is shown in two parts. On the left, the dashed-line
curve covers the range of values of head in which the influence of
boundary resistance is dominant in the model. (The corresponding
range of heads for a 9 :l-scale prototype is represented by the solid-
line curve in the middle.) On the right, the dashed-line curve covers
the range of h/L values in which the influence of flow curvature was
dominant in the model. The prototype counterpart of this curve can
be expected to be similar to the model curve. However, it cannot be
predicted accurately without experimental data from tests on models
of different size (scale) or from tests on prototype embankments.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the model tests summarized on page 58, it is con-
cluded that the coefficient of discharge for free flow is primarily a
function of head, roadway roughness, and the head-width ratio
(h/L). The coefficient of discharge for submerged flow is primarily
a function of the submergence ratio (t/Hi) and the roughness of the
roadway surface. These conclusions are substantiated by the sum-
mary curves in figures 41 and 42. In general, values of t/Hi corre-
sponding to incipient submergence and the free-flow transition-range
limits vary with head, roadway roughness, and h/L. This conclusion
is substantiated by the curves shown in figure 43.
For intermediate values of head, the coefficient of discharge for
free flow is nearly equal to the ideal value (3.09) which corresponds
to the assumption of critical-depth control at the crown. For smaller
values of head, the influence of boundary resistance causes the co-
efficient to be smaller than the ideal value. For larger values of head
(or, actually, larger values of A/Z), the influence of flow curvature
at the control section causes the coefficient to be larger than the ideal
value.
The influence of boundary resistance on the free-flow coefficient of
discharge is related to the relative thickness of the boundary layer
at the crown line of the embankment. The growth of the boundary
layer and, therefore, the thickness of the boundary layer at the crown
line can be computed approximately with empirical equations which
are based on well-known general equations for turbulent boundary
layers in accelerated motion. Consequently, the coefficient of dis-
charge for free-flow, in the range of low and intermediate values of
head, can be computed with equations which involve boundary-layer
parameters. However, the equations are not sufficiently general and
convenient to be practical. Therefore, the most practical solution for
free-flow discharge is that which is based on the simple equation of
A88 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

discharge and experimentally determined coefficients which are re-

lated directly to the basic geometric and flow variables. This is the
solution which makes use of the curves in figure 41.
The ultimate goal of this research is a satisfactory solution for the
discharge characteristics of a full, practical variety of prototype em-
bankments. The model tests show that the most significant character-
istics of both free and submerged flow are virtually independent of
embankment shape and relative height (h/P). However, the in-
fluence of boundary resistance is appreciable, and it depends on road-
way width as well as roughness. The model test data are not ade-
quate to define accurately the boundary-resistance effects for proto-
type-size embankments. For a more accurate evaluation of these
effects, the results of the model studies should be correlated with a
limited number of prototype tests.

REFERENCES CITED
Bauer, W. J., 1954, Turbulent boundary layer on steep slopes: Am. Soc. Civil
Engineers Trans., v. 119, p. 1212.
Delleur, J. W., 1957, The boundary layer development in open channels: Am. Soc.
Civil Engineers Proc.. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Div.. EMI,
January, Paper 1138.
Halbronn, G., 1954, Turbulent boundary layer on steep slopes [discussion of
paper by Bauer (1954)] : Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Trans., v. 119, p. 1234.
Kindsvater, C. E., 1957, Flood-erosion protection for highway fills [discussion
of paper by Chesley J. Posey I : Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Trans.. v. 122,
p. 548.
Schlichting, Hermann, 3955. Boundary layer theory: New York. Pergamon Press,
535 p.
Tracy, H. J., 1957, Discharge characteristics of broad-crested weirs: U.S. Geol.
Survey Circ. 397, 15 p., 11 figs.
Yarnell, D. L., and Nagler, F. A., 1930, Flow of flood water over railway and
highway embankments:" Public Roads, v. 11, no. 2 (April), p. 30.
 EXPERIMENTAL DATA

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics l

[F, free flow, tailwater below lower limit of transition range; LL, freeflow, tailwater at lower limit of tran-
sition range; UL, free flow, tailwater at upper limit of transition range; IS, incipient submergence; S,
submerged flow]

Run ? (cfs t h Ho C Remarks Run q (cfs t h Ho C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL A-2
Testl
[2/ 0 =0.120ft,'2/,/|/c=1.04]

1- .. 0.222 0.175 0.175 3.03 F 5...... .222 .204 .212 .212 2.27 S
2...... .222 0.118 .174 .174 3.05 UL .222 .233 .239 .239 1.90 S
3...... .222 .155 .175 .175 3.03 IS 7 .222 .258 .262 .262 1.65 S
4..... .222 .179 .191 .191 2.65 S 8 .222 .052 .175 .175 3.03 LL

Test 2
[2/,=0.194 ft, »./»«= 1-04]

1- 0.451 0.278 0.280 3.05 F 6... .451 .350 .363 .364 2.05 S
2 . .451 0.196 .278 .280 3.05 UL 7 .451 .381 .390 .391 1.84 S
3...... .451 .231 278 .280 3.05 IS 8 ... .451 .409 .418 .419 1.66 S
4...... .451 .271 .295 .296 2.79 S 9_ .451 .443 .450 .451 1.49 S
6 .451 .315 .332 .333 2.34 S 10.. .451 .129 .278 .280 3.05 LL

Tests
= 1.03]

I...... 0.650 0.353 0.356 3.06 F 6....- .650 .418 .438 .440 2.23 S
2.. . .650 0.258 .353 .356 3.06 UL 7. .. .650 .461 .476 .478 1.96 S
3...... .650 .295 .353 .356 3.06 IS 8 - .650 .498 .511 .513 1.77 S
4. .... .650 .324 .361 .364 2.96 S 9. . .650 .543 .553 .555 1.57 S
5...... .650 .388 .411 .414 2.44 S 10..... .650 .164 .353 .356 3.06 LL

Test 4
[y0=0.089 ft, y o/yc= 1.03]
1. 0.143 0.132 0.132 2.98 F 5 . . .143 .119 .134 .134 2.91 S
2-____ _ .143 0.076 .132 .132 2.98 UL 6...... .143 .178 .181 .181 1.86 8
3 .143 .111 .132 .132 2.98 IS 7--.. .143 .012 .132 .132 2.98 LL
4...... .143 .149 .156 .156 2.32 S

Tests
[y,=OA5l ft, y<,lv c =0.977]

L . . 1.78 0.647 0.688 3.12 F 3 1.78 .561 .674 .688 3.12 IS

2...... 1.78 0.543 .674 .688 3.12 UL 4...... 1.78 .414 .672 .687 3.12 LL

See footnote at end of table, p. A106.

A89
 A90 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(cfs t A Ho C Remarks Run <?(cfs t A H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL A-2 Continued

Test 6

l
2... ...
1.14
1.14 0.399
0.510 0.517 3.06
.510 .517 3.06
F
UL
6
7
1.14
1.14
.534
.584
.570
.612
.576
.618
2.60
2.34
S
S
3 1.14 .417 .510 .517 3.06 IS 8 1.14 .637 .660 .667 2.09 S
4 1.14 .459 .516 .523 3.01 S 9 1.14 .689 .706 .712 1.90 s
5 1.14 .499 .542 .550 2.80 S 10. - 1.14 .289 .510 .517 3.06 LL

MODEL A-3
Testl
[y . =0.122 ft, y./tf.= 1.06]

l._ . 0.221 0.174 0.174 3.04 F 5 . .221 .233 .239 .239 1.89 S
.221 0.117 .174 .174 3.04 UL 6 .221 .260 .264 .264 1.63 S
.221 .153 .174 .174 3.04 IS 7 .221 .305 .307 .307 1.30 s
4..- ... .221 .191 .202 .2D2 2.43 S 8 .221 .047 .174 .174 3.04 LL

Test 2

1 . .. 0.476 0.289 0.291 3.04 F 6... .476 .359 .372 .374 2.09 S
2.. . .476 Q.216 .289 .291 3.04 UL 7 .476 .410 .418 .420 1.75 S
3... ... .476 .249 .289 .291 3.04 IS 8 .476 .463 .469 .470 1.48 S
4...... .476 .278 .304 .306 2.82 S 9. .476 .132 .289 .291 3.04 LL
5...... .476 .312 .331 .333 2.48 s
TestS
1.03]

1 1.01 0.472 0.478 3.06 F 5 1.01 .520 .547 .553 2.46 S

2.. . 1.01 0.387 .473 .479 3.06 UL 6 1.01 .610 .628 .633 2.01 S
3 _. 1.01 .404 .473 .479 3.06 IS 7_ 1.01 .274 .472 .478 3.06 LL
4 1.01 .468 .505 .511 2.77 S

Test 4

1 1.53 0.617 0.629 3.08 F 4___ ... 1.53 .611 .655 .666 2.82 S
2...... 1.53 0.501 .618 .635 3.07 UL 5 1 53 .682 .709 .720 2.51 S
3_._ 1.53 .531 .618 .630 3.07 IS 6 1.53 .388 .617 .629 3.08 LL

TestS
[y.-0.471 ft, ya/y

1 1.89 0.701 0.718 3.12 F 3 . 1.89 .608 .702 .719 3.11 IS

3... ... 1.89 0.549 .702 .719 3.11 UL 4 . 1.89 .463 .701 .718 3.12 LL

MODEL A-4
Testl
0.037 ft, ?./».=1.001

1 0.0402 0.058 0.058 2.91 F 3. - 0402 .018 .061 .061 2.70 IS

2 .0402 0.001 .060 .060 2.77 UL 4 . .0402 -.089 .058 .058 2.91 LL

Test 2
[y.=0.078ft,y,,/y.=1.04]
I . 0.117 0.117 0.117 2.93 F 3 .117 .106 .120 .120 2.82 IS
2... ... .117 0.073 .119 .119 2.86 UL 4... ._. .117 -.005 .117 .117 2.93 LL
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A91

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(cfs h Ho C Remarks Run g (cfs t k Ha C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL A-4 Continued

Tests
[yo=0.140ft, t/o/t/c=1.03]

1 ... 0.284 0.208 0.208 2.99 F 3 ... .284 .180 .211 .211 2.93 IS
2 ... .284 0.146 .210 .210 2.95 UL 4...... .284 .067 .208 .208 2.99 LL

Test 4
[00=0.209 ft, t/o/t/<,=1.06]

l.-_ 0.498 0.299 0.300 3.03 F 3 ... .498 .260 .303 .304 2.97 IS
2 ... .498 0.218 301 .302 3.00 UL 4. .. .498 .117 .299 .300 3.03 LL

Tests
[tf.=0.271 ft, ?./?«-1.03]

1 0.765 0.394 0.397 3.06 F 3.. . .765 .345 .399 .402 3.00 IS
2 . .765 0.315 .397 .400 3.02 UL 4...... .765 .209 .394 .397 3.06 LL

Test 6
[00=0.330 ft, Vo/Vc=1.02]

1.05 0.483 0.489 3.06 F 3 1.05 .417 .487 .493 3.03 IS

2 1.05 0.397 .486 .492 3.04 UL 4 1.05 .259 .483 .489 3.06 LL

Test?
[1/0=0.390 ft, l/o/l/o=0.999]

1 . 1.39 0.577 0.586 3.09 F 3...... 1.39 .504 . 581 .590 3.06 IS
2...... 1.39 0.46( . 580 . 589 3. 07 UL 4__.-_- 1.39 .354 . 576 .586 3.09 LL

Tests
[t/o=0.435 ft, l/<,/l/c=0.986]

1... 1.66 0.648 0.651 3.09 F 3.. 1.66 .558 .652 .665 3.06 IS
2...... 1.66 0.53D .651 .664 3.07 UL 4. .. 1.66 .402 .648 .661 3.09 LL

Tests
=0.474 ft, t/o/t/c=0.976]

1... ... 1.92 0.711 0.727 3.10 F 3. .. 1.92 .623 .716 .732 3.07 IS
2. - 1.92 0.588 .714 .73J 3.08 UL 4... 1.92 .457 .711 .727 3.10 LL

Test 10

1 0. 0592 0.07 0.074 2.97 F 4. -. .386 .252 .253 3.04 F

2...... .172 .14 .148 3.03 F 5.... - 1.59 .628 .640 3. It F
3...... .277 .2J2 .203 3.02 F 6...... 1.88 .702 .718 3.01 F

Test 11

1. .. 0.0343 0.050 0.050 3.02 F 7 --. .888 .435 .440 3.04 F

2...... .0900 .097 .097 2.97 F 8 ... 1.12 .505 .512 3.01 F
3 ... .187 .156 .15o 3.02 F 9... 1.40 .581 .59i 3.01 F
4...... .323 .224 .225 3.02 F 10- 1.71 .656 .670 3.11 F
5...... .451 .278 .250 3.04 F 11. ... 1.93 .710 .726 3.11 F
6...... .674 .362 .366 3.05 F
 A92 FLOW OF WATER , OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Bun "g (cfs t k Ha C Remarks Bun g (cfs t h Ho <? Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL A-4 Continued

Test 12
1
1 0.0335 0.050 0.050 2.95 F 6...... .967 .460 .465 3.05 F
2. .109 ,110 .110 2.99 F 7_ 1.28 .550 .559 3.07 F
3... ... .228 .179 .179 3.00 F 8 ... 1.61 .636 .648 3.08 F
4. .375 .248 .250 3.01 F 9_ .. 1.91 .708 .725 3.09 F
5 .640 .352 .354 3.04 F

MODEL B
Test 1
[y0 =0.096 ft, y0/?«=1.02]

1... 0.163 0.097 0.142 0.142 3.02 F, UL 5 ... .163 .182 .186 .186 2.02 S
2 ... .163 .126 .142 .142 3.02 IS 6_ _. .163 .218 .221 .221 1.56 S
3...... .163 .133 .145 .145 2.93 S 7..... . .163 .005 .142 .142 3.02 LL
4_ .. .163 .150 .158 1W 2 CO
s
Test 2
[y.,-0.131 ft, Wtf .-1.02]
1. ~ 0.259 0.148 0.194 0.195 3.01 F, UL 4 .259 .197 .210 .211 2.67 S
2_.. .259 .167 .194 .195 3.01 IS 5 ... .259 .217 .227 .223 2.38 S
3.._. _. .259 .182 .198 .199 2.92 S 6 ... .259 .070 .194 .195 3.01 LL

Tests

1 0.506 0.233 0.300 0.303 3.03 F, UL 7 .506 .389 .399 .402 1.99 S
2...... .506 .260 .300 .303 3.03 IS 8 .506 .408 .417 .419 1.86 S
3... ... .506 .294 .316 .319 2.81 S 9 .506 .438 .445 .447 1.69 S
4...... .506 .314 .332 .335 2,61 S 10 __ . .506 .464 .470 .472 1.56 s
5...... .506 .336 .352 .355 2.40 s 11 .506 .155 .300 .303 3.03 LL
6...... .506 .365 .377 .380 2.16 s
Test 4
[00=0.256 ft, v,lv c =l.Q3\
I..-.. 0.706 0.291 0.371 0.376 3.06 F, UL 6...... .706 .521 .529 .533 1.81 S
2...... .706 ,321 .371 .376 3.06 IS 7 ... .706 .579 .585 .589 1.56 S
3...... .706 .379 .400 .405 2.74 S 8 .706 .631 .636 .639 1.38 s
4.. . .706 .437 .451 .455 2.30 s 9...... .706 .216 .371 .376 3.06 LL
5...... .706 .475 .486 .490 2.06 s
Tests
[^=0.353 ft, VolVc=1.02]

I...... 1.16 0.405 0.515 0.526 3.03 F, UL 6...... 1.16 .608 .628 .637 2.27 S
2...... 1.16 .432 .515 .526 3.03 IS 7 ... 1.16 .677 .692 .701 1.97 S
3...... 1.16 .485 .529 .540 2.92 s 8...-.- 1.16 .747 .756 .764 1.73 s
4...... 1.16 .527 .559 .569 2.69 s 1.16 .327 .515 .526 3.03 LL
5...... 1.16 .558 .584 .594 2.53 s
Tests
[^0=0.477 ft, j/ 0/y c =0.981]

1 .... 1,92 0. 582 0.703 0.726 3.11 F, UL 8~--~ 1.92 .513 .702 .725 3.12 LL
2___ J __ 1.92 .603 .703 .726 3.11 IS

Test 7

I.. . 1,48 0.601 0.617 3.06 F 3 1.30 .551 .564 3.06 F

2...... .618 .342 .346 3.04 F 4...... 1.84 .683 .705 3.11 F
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A93
TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(cfs t h Ho C Remarks Run q (cfs t h Ho C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL C
Testl
=0.108 ft, 2/«,/2/«=1.02]

0.197 0.112 0.161 0.162 3.01 F, UL .197 .214 .218 .219 1.92
2..... .197 .147 .161 .162 3.01 IS .197 .243 .246 .247 1.60
3..... .197 .182 .189 .190 2.37 .197 .048 .161 .162 3.01 LL

Test 2
U/.=0.216 ft, Voly^l.04]

1 0.534 0.226 0.307 0.313 3.06 F, UL 5...... .534 .370 .378 .383 2.26 S
2...... .534 .270 .307 .313 3.06 IS 6_ ._ .534 .419 .425 .429 1.90 S
3...... .534 .296 .315 .320 2.94 S 7.. . .534 .458 .461 .465 1.68 s
4...... .534 .325 .339 .344 2.64 s 8...... .534 .175 .307 .313 3.06 LL

Tests
[y o=0.257 ft, y,/y e **1.02]

1 -. 0.715 0.283 0.371 0.380 3.06 F, UL 5. .. .715 .440 .452 .459 2.30 S
2... ... .715 .337 .371 .380 3.06 IS 6._.-_ .715 .500 .507 .514 1.94 S
3...... .715 .367 .388 .396 2.86 S 7 .715 .579 .583 589 1.58 s
4...... .715 .401 418 .426 2.57 s 8. .. .715 .228 .370 .379 3.06 LL

Test 4
U/«,=0.358 ft, y 0/Vc=1.02]

1-- 1.18 0.417 0.510 0.528 3.08 F, UL 5-.--. 1.18 .592 .606 .621 2.41 S
2..... 1.18 .452 .510 .528 3.08 IS 6-. 1.18 .663 .671 .685 2.09 S
3.-... 1.18 .487 .519 .537 3.01 S 7.- 1.18 .359 .510 .528 3.08 LL
4._... 1.18 .541 .561 .578 2.70 s
TestS
U/ 0 =0.468 ft, Vo/V, =0.977]

I.. 1.88 0.549 0.682 0.716 3.10 F, UL 3---.. 1.88 .501 .682 7.16 3.10 LL
2..... 1.88 .593 .682 .716 3.10 IS

Test 6

1--.-. 1.47 0.586 0.610 3.08 F 2 0.873 .426 .438 3.02 F

MODEL D
Testl
[2/ 0 =0.067 ft, V,lv,

I--.-. 0.0959 0.101 0.102 2.94 F 4- . .0959 .150 .153 .154 1.59 S
2__... .0959 0. 087 .101 .102 2.94 IS 5_.__. .0959 .105 .111 .112 2.56 S
3_..__ .0959 .109 .113 .114 2.49 S

Test 2
[3/0=0.094 ft, y 0/V,.=l.02]

1 0 159 0.141 0.143 2.93 F 5---_- .159 .160 .165 .167 2.33 S
2. . .159 0. 116 .141 .143 2.93 IS 6---.. . 159 .171 .175 .177 2.13 S
3-. .159 .134 .145 .147 2.81 S 7- -._ . 159 . 183 .187 .189 1.94 S
4._... .159 .147 .154 .156 2.57 S
 A94 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run g (cfs t A Ho C Remarks Run g (cfs t h H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL D Continued
Tests
[y0 =0.135ft, y./y.=1.02]

I..... 0.272 0.196 0.201 3.02 F 5-. .272 .207 .215 .220 2.65 S
2..... .272 0.166 .196 .201 3.02 IS 6..... .272 .220 .226 .230 2.46 S
3.-... .272 .181 .197 .202 3.00 S 7..... .272 .240 .243 .247 2.22 S
4..... .272 .191 .202 .207 2.89 S

Test 4
fo e =0.216 ft, y./y.=1.05]

1-.. 0.525 0.300 0.312 3.01 F 5..... .525 .328 .338 .349 2.55 s
2... . .525 0.270 .300 .312 3.01 IS 6..... .525 .355 .362 .372 2.31 s
3-.... .525 .282 .303 .315 2.97 S 7..... .525 .375 .381 .391 2.15 s
4..... .526 .310 .323 .334 2.72 S 8-.... .525 .396 .400 .408 2.02 s
TestS
[y. =0.265 ft, y,/y«=1.01]

1. .... 0.763 0.378 O QAQ 3 04 F 5 .- .763 .374 .394 .413 2.87 S

2..... .763 0.335 .378 OQO
3.04 TQ 6.. .763 .400 .415 .433 2.68 S
3..... .763 .342 .379 .399 3.02 s 7.. .763 .446 .454 .470 2.36 S
4..... .763 .351 .380 .400 3.01 s 8-. .763 .488 .493 .508 2.11 s
Tests
=0.367 ft, yalv,= 1.01J

1 1.25 0.527 0.563 2.95 F 4_._ 1.25 .520 .551 .585 2.78 S
2 1.25 0.475 .527 .563 2.95 IS 6 1.25 .547 .571 .604 2.66 S
3...... 1.25 .498 .536 .571 2.88 S 6 _. 1.25 .591 .605 .635 2.46 S

Test 7

1 ... 0.288 0.138 0.203 0.208 3.03 F.UL 12 1.29 .409 .523 .562 3.07 LL
2...... .288 .189 .203 .208 3.03 IS 13 1.97 .581 .676 .741 3.09 F.UL
3 ... .288 .101 .203 .208 3.03 LL 14. - 1.97 .625 .676 .741 3.09 IS
4...... .490 .206 .285 .296 3.04 F,UL 15 1.97 .549 .676 .741 3.09 LL
6 ... .490 .261 .285 .296 3.04 IS 16 .159 .087 .141 .143 2.94 IS
6...... .490 .181 .285 .296 3.04 LL 17 .159 .116 .141 .143 2.94 IS
7. .. .793 .301 .385 .406 3.06 F,UL 18 .159 .050 .141 .143 2.94 LL
8 ... .793 .357 .385 .406 3.06 IS 19 .970 .437 .464 3.07 F
9...... .793 .275 .385 .406 3.06 LL 20 1.58 .590 .640 3.08 F
10..... 1.29 .423 .523 .562 3.07 F,UL 21 .- .777 .380 .401 3.06 F
11.. 1.29 .469 .523 .562 3.07 IS

MODEL E
Test 1

I... ... 0.175 0.151 0.151 2.97 F 5 .175 .187 .192 .192 2.08 S
2...... .175 0.121 .155 .155 2.86 UL 6_ _. .175 .208 2.11 .211 1.80 S
3... ... .175 .125 .155 .155 2.86 IS 7 .175 .054 .152 .152 2.95 LL
4...... .175 .163 .172 .172 2.45 S

Test 2
[y0=0.147ft, ya/
1 .0.292 0.211 0.212 2.99 F 5 .292 .225 .238 .239 2.50 S
2 .292 0.159 .213 .214 2.95 UL 6 .292 .252 .260 .261 2.19 S
3 . .292 .171 .213 .214 2.95 IS 7 ... .292 .285 :290 .291 1.86 S
4_ _. .292 .195 .216 .217 2.89 S 8 .292 .095 .212 .213 2.97 LL
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A95
TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued
Run ff(cfs t h H0 C Remarks Run q (cfs t h Ho C Remarks
No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL E Continued
TestS
[2/o=0.203 ft, 2/o/2/c=1.03]

1 0.496 0.296 0.298 3.05 F 6.. _ .496 .361 .373 .375 2.16 S
2 .496 0.226 .299 .301 3.00 UL 7 .496 .415 .421 .423 1.80 S
3 .496 .240 .299 .301 3.00 IS 8 .496 .467 .471 .473 1.53 S
4... ... .496 .261 .301 .303 2.98 S 9 . .496 .152 .297 .299 3.04 LL
5. .. .496 .306 .325 .327 2.66 s
Test 4
[j/o=0.289 ft, 2/»/2/*=1.01]

1 ... 0.871 0.430 3.04 F 6...... .871 .539 .553 .557 2.09 S
2 .__ .871 0.341 .432 .437 3.01 UL 7 ... .871 .578 .688 .592 1.91 S
3 ... .871 .367 .432 .437 3.01 IS 8 - .871 .673 .680 .684 1.54 S
4...... .871 .399 .442 .447 2.92 S 9... .871 .245 .431 .436 3.02 LL
Ann 2.53
5... ... .871 4KQ 407
S

Tests
=0.351 ft, 2/o/2/ e =0.982]

1 ... 122 0.538 0.546 3 m F 6 . 1.22 .541 .580 .588 2.70 S

2...... 1 22 0.434 .539 K4.7 3.00 UL 7... 1.22 .616 641 .648 2.33 S
3 ... 1.22 .459 .539 .547 3.00 IS 1.22 .672 .690 .697 2.09 s
4...... 1.22 .474 .543 .551 2.97 S 9 1.22 .326 .539 .547 3.00 LL
5... ... 1.22 .507 .557 .565 2 Of* S

Test 6
, 2/o/2/«=0.968]
1 1.92 0.711 0.728 3.09 F 3. 1.92 .607 .714 .731 3.07 IS
2...... 1.92 0.603 .714 .731 3.07 UL 4... 1.92 .475 .714 .731 3.07 LL

Test 7
[2/o=0.415 ft, 2/o/2/«=0.965]

1 ... 1.60 0.635 0.648 3.06 F

MODEL F
Test 1
[2/o=0.106 ft, 2/o/2/c=l-04]

1 ... 0.183 0.155 0.155 3.00 F 5 ... .183 .184 .190 .190 2.21 S
2 . . .183 0.116 .156 .156 2.97 UL 6 _.- .183 .234 .237 .237 1.59 S
3...... .183 .127 .156 .156 2.97 IS 7 .183 .040 .156 .156 2.97 LL
4. .. .183 .152 .165 .165 2.73 S

Test 2
0.138ft, 2/o/2/c=1.02]

1 0.281 0.205 0.206 3.01 F 6 .281 .265 .271 .272 1.98 S

2...... .281 0.150 .206 .207 2.99 UL 7 ... .281 .299 .304 .305 1.67 S
3...... .281 .169 .206 .207 2.99 IS 8 .281 .328 .331 .332 1.47 S
4...... .281 .199 .215 .216 2.80 S 9 ... .281 .076 .206 .207 2.99 LL
5...... .281 .229 .240 .241 2.38 S

Tests

1 ... 0.484 0.291 0.293 3.06 F 7 - .484 .325 .342 .344 2.40 S
2 ... .484 0.217 .293 .295 3.02 UL 8 .484 .338 .352 .354 2.30 S
3 ... .484 .240 .293 .295 3.02 IS 9 ... .484 .381 .390 .392 1.98 S
4...... .484 .246 .294 .296 3.01 S 10 - .484 .428 .435 .436 1.68 s
5 .484 .264 .297 .299 2.96 S 11 . .484 .491 .495 .496 1.38 s
6 .484 .285 .309 .311 2.80 s 12 .484 .142 .292 .294 3.04 LL
 A96 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run g(cfs t h H, C Remarks Run g (cfs t h Ho C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL F Continued
Test 4

1 _ .. 0.841 0.420 0.425 3.04 F 7 .841 .446 .472 .476 2.56 S

2-. .841 0.335 .421 .426 3.03 UL 8 .841 .492 .512 .516 2.27 S
3 .841 .346 .421 .426 3.03 IS
8' g Sdl MQ 554 .558 2.02 S
4 .841 .373 .423 .428 3.01 10...- 841 .592 .602 .606 1 78 S
5 .841 .393 .433 .438 2.99 S 11 .841 .646 .655 660 1.57 S
6... .841 .427 .458 .462 2.67 S 12-... .841 .245 .421 426 3.03 LL

Tests

1 1.21 0.532 0.540 3.05 F 5 ... 1.21 .542 .579 .587 2.69 S
2...... 1.21 0.432 .534 .542 3.03 UL 6. 1.21 .614 .608 .645 2.34 S
3 ... 1.21 .444 .534 .542 3.03 IS 1.21 .676 .691 .697 2.08 S
4 ... 1.21 .464 .535 .543 3.02 S 1.21 .329 .532 .540 3.05 LL

Test 6

i 1.88 0.701 0.717 3.09 F 1.88 .601 .703 71Q 3.08 IS

2 .. 1.88 0.594 .703 71Q 3.08 UL 4 .. 1 RR .477 .701 .717 3.09 LL

Test?
[^=0.409 ft, ^.=0.979]

1 1.53 0.617 0.629 3.07 F

MODEL G
Test 1
[^= 0.084 ft, y,/».=1.04]

1 ... 0.130 0.122 0.122 3.05 F 4. .130 .127 132 132 2.71 S
2...... .130 0.071 .122 .122 3.05 UL 5.. . .130 .157 .160 .160 2.03 S
3...... .130 .107 .122 .122 3.05 IS 6 ..... .130 -.001 .122 .122 3.05 LL

Test 2

1 0.282 0.203 0.204 3.06 F 6 .282 ,244 .251 .252 2.23 S

2...... .282 0.140 .203 .204 3.06 UL 7 .282 .273 .278 .279 1.91 S
3...... .282 .178 .203 .204 3.06 IS 8 .282 .300 .304 .305 1.68 S
4... - 282 ..197 .212 .213 2.87 S 9 .282 .069 .203 .204 3.06 LL
5- . .282 .217 .229 .230 2.56 S

TestS
foo=0.189 ft, tfo/j
1 0.447 0.277 0.278 3.04 F 6. .. .447 .326 338 .339 2.26 S
2.. .447 0.199 .277 .278 3.04 UL 7... .447 .368 .376 .377 1.93 S
3._____ .447 .243 .277 278 3.04 IS 8 .447 .409 .415 .416 1.66 S
4 .447 .257 .282 .284 2.96 S .9 .447 .456 .459 .460 1.43 S
5.. .447 .288 .303 .304 2.66 S 10 .447 .114 .277 .278 3.04 LL

Test 4

1 ... 0.789 0.402 0.406 3.05 F 6 .789 .427 .451 .455 2.57 S
2 . .789 0.311 .402 .406 3.05 UL 7 .789 .459 .477 .481 2.37 S
3 .789 .341 .402 .406 3.05 IS 8 .789 .538 .549 .552 1.92 S
4 .789 .363 .406 .410 3.01 S 9...... .789 .616 .623 .626 1.59 S
5-___. .789 .393 .424 .428 2.82 S 10..... .789 .213 .402 .406 3.05 LL
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A97

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run q (cfs t h Ho C Remarks Run q (cfs t h H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL G Continued
TestS

1 . 1.17 0.520 0.528 3.06 F 6...... 1.17 .553 .583 KQfl

2.58 S
2...... 1.17 0.418 .520 .528 3.06 UL 7 1.17 .607 2.32 S
3...... 1.17 .447 .520 .528 3.06 IS 8 1.17 .660 .676 2.08 S
4...... 1.17 .457 .523 .531 3.03 S 9 . 1.17 .309 .520 .528 3.06 LL
5...... 1.17 .530 .538 2 07 S

Test 6
[^=0.474 ft, y 0/^=0.980]

i ... 1.91 0.701 0.718 3.14 F 3... 1.91 .598 .702 719 3.13 IS
2...... 1.91 0.592 .702 .719 3.13 UL 1.91 .462 .702 71 Q 3.13 LL

Test?
[^=0.411 ft, y 0/

l 1.48 | 0.602 0.613 3.08 F

MODEL H
Testl

1...... 0.123 0.118 0.118 3.02 F 5 _ .123 .109 .120 .120 2.94 S
2...... .123 0.065 .118 .118 3.02 UL .123 .128 .131 .131 2.58 S
3...... .123 .074 .118 .118 3.02 IS 7. .123 .142 .144 .144 2.24 S
4...... .123 .084 .119 119 2.98 .123 -.017 .118 .118 3.02 LL

Test 2
feo=0.127ft, Jf 0/Jf e =1.02]

1 0.247 0.186 0.187 3.07 F 6...... .247 .199 .208 .209 2.60 S
2...... .247 0.129 .187 .188 3.05 UL 7 .247 .219 .226 .227 2.30 S
3 .247 .145 .187 .188 3.05 IS 8 .247 .255 .259 .260 1.87 S
4...... .247 .161 .188 .198 3.02 S 9...... .247 .048 .186 .187 3.07 LL
5 ... .247 .181 .193 .194 2.91 S

Tests
=0.187 ft, VolV- =1.02]

1 . 0.446 0.274 0.276 3.08 F 7 ... .446 .312 .325 .326 2.39 S
2...... .446 0.196 .275 .277 3.06 UL 8 .446 .345 .355 .356 2.10 S
3...... .446 .223 .275 .277 3.06 IS 9 .446 .380 .387 .388 1.84 S
4...... .446 .232 .276 .278 3.05 S 10. .446 .427 .431 .432 1.57 S
5.... .. .446 .250 .278 .280 3.02 S 11 .446 .108 .274 .276 3.08 LL
6...... .446 .269 .290 .292 2.83 S

Test 4
=0.277 ft, yjy, 1.02]
1- 0.799 0.404 0.408 3.06 F 6. .799 .431 .454 .458 2.58 S
2 __ .799 0.309 .405 .409 3.05 UL 7 .799 .488 .504 .508 2.21 S
3 .799 .347 .405 .409 3.05 IS 8. _ -. .799 .539 .550 .553 1.94 S
4...... .799 .353 .406 .410 3.04 S 9 - .799 .591 .598 .601 1.71 S
5...... .799 .378 .415 .419 2.95 S 10 .799 .198 .404 .408 3.06 LL

TestS
[^=0.353 ft, Voh =1.01]

1 1.17 0.517 0. 525 3.09 F 5... ... 1.17 .534 .568 .575 2.69 S
2. __ 1.17 0.426 .520 .528 3.07 UL 6 . 1.17 .599 .622 .629 2.36 S
3...... 1.17 .442 .520 .528 3.07 IS 7 1.17 .647 .665 .672 2.14 S
4_ __ 1.17 .465 .523 .531 3.04 S 8 ... 1.17 .291 .518 .526 3.08 LL
 A98 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run g(efs t h H0 C Remarks Run q (efs t A H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL H Continued
Test 6
[^,,=0.463 ft, y,ly «=0.977]
1 1.84 0.682 0.698 3.16 F ______ 1 ore
1. ad. .583 .687 .702 3.12 TQ
lib
2._.___ 1.84 0,580 .687 .702 3.12 TJL 4... ... 1.84 .446 .685 .700 3.14 LL

Test?
fo0 =0.416 ft, tf«/tf .=0.998]
1
1 1.52 0.606 0.618 3.14 F

MODEL I
Testl
=0.135 ft, y<,/y c --

1 ... 0.266 0.196 0.197 3.05 F 5 .266 .219 .235 .236 2.33 S
2...... .266 0.130 .197 .198 3.03 UL 6 .266 .270 .279 .280 1.80 S
3...... .266 .161 198 3.03 IS 7 .266 .355 .259 .360 1.23 S
4...... .266 .185 .208 !209 2 79 S g .266 .065 .197 .198 3.03 LL

Test 2

1 _ ... 0.573 0.-325 0.327 3.06 F 5... ... .573 .348 .373 .375 2.49 S
2...... .573 0.236 .326 .328 3.04 UL 6 .573 .400 .418 .420 2.10 S
3...... .573 .265 .326 .328 3.04 IS 7 .573 .551 .558 .560 1.37 S
4..... .573 .303 .342 .344 2.83 S Q .573 .164 .326 .328 3.04 LL

TestS
[j/0=0.345 ft, ye/y e=lM]

1 1.01 0.473 0.479 3.05 F 6 1.01 .552 .584 .589 2.24 S

2.. .... 1.01 0.380 .475 .481 3.03 UL 7 1.01 .615 .635 .640 1.98 S
3...... 1.01 .395 .475 .481 3.03 IS 8 1.01 .689 .704 .709 1.70 S
4...... 1.01 .434 .491 .497 2.89 S 9 1.01 .265 .473 .479 3.05 LL
5 __ 1.01 .479 .521 .527 2.64 S

Test 4
=0.404 ft, tf./?.=0.978]

1 ... 1.50 0.608 0.620 3.08 F 5 -- 1.50 .593 .650 .661 2.80 S
2...... 1.50 0.489 .610 .622 3.07 UL 6.... .. 1.50 .673 .711 .721 2.45 S
3...... 1.50 .496 .610 .622 3.07 IS 7... 1.50 .389 .609 .620 3.08 LL
4...... 1.50 .538 .617 .628 3.02 S

TestS
[^.=0.467 ft, j/0/2^=0.967]

I...... 1.90 0.704 0.721 3.11 F 3 1.90 .600 .705 .722 3.10 IS
2... 1.90 0.585 .705 .722 3.10 UL 4...... 1.90 .473 .704 .721 3.11 LL

MODEL J
Test 1
0=0.111 ft, tfo/tf.

1- . 0.205 0.164 0.164 3.08 F 5 ... .205 .202 .209 .209 2.14 S
2...... .205 0.128 .164 .164 3.08 UL 6... .205 .239 .242 .242 1.72 S
3. . .205 .148 .164 .164 3.08 IS 7 ... .205 .032 .164 .164 3.08 LL
4.....: .205 .171 .182 .182 2.62 S
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A99
TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run g (cfs I t h Ha C Remarks Run q (cfs * h Ha C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL J Continued
Test 2
[y0=0.210 ft, ya/y e=l.05]

1 0.508 0.298 0.300 3.10 F 6 ... .508 .328 .346 .348 2.48 S
.508 0.228 .298 .300 3.10 UL 7 ... .508 .407 .415 .417 1.89 S
3_..-__.508 .245 .298 .300 3.10 IS 8 ... .508 .483 .489 .491 1.48 S
.508 .259 .299 .301 3.08 S 9 ... .508 .127 .298 .300 3.10 LL
5 ... .508 .286 .312 .314 2.89 s
TestS
[y«=0.321 ft, y«/y«~1.02]

1 1.01 0.467 0.473 3.10 F 5 -.. 1.01 .533 .558 .563 2.38 S
2 ... 1.01 0.374 .468 .474 3.09 UL 6 ... 1.01 .619 .636 .641 1.96 S
3...... 1.01 .402 .468 .474 3.09 IS 7 1.01 .246 .467 .473 3.10 LL
4__-_. 1.01 .452 .491 .497 2.88 S

Test 4
[j<<,=0.399 ft, j» 0/2^=0.982]

1... _ 1.47 0.594 0.605 3.12 F 5... _ 1.47 .591 .634 .645 2.84 S
2...... 1.47 0.493 .597 .608 3.10 UL 6... ... 1.47 .673 .700 .710 2.46 S
3....... 1.47 .503 .597 .608 3.10 IS 7 ... 1.47 .346 .595 .606 3.11 LL
4...... 1.47 .547 .606 .617 3.03 S

TestS
[y.=0.471 ft, ya/y ,=0.967]

1 ... 1.93 0.699 0.716 3.18 F 3... 1.93 .609 .704 .721 3.15 IS
2...... 1.93 0.588 .704 .721 3.15 UL 4...... 1.93 .451 .701 .718 3.17 LL

MODEL K-2
Testl
tya=0.111 ft, ^.=0.974]

!-.. 0.219 0.172 0.172 3.06 F 7.- .219 .238 .243 .243 1.83 S
2..... .219 0.121 .172 .172 3.06 UL 8.. .219 .251 .255 .255 1.70 S
3..... .219 .141 .172 .172 3.06 IS 9-.--. .219 .284 .287 .287 1.42 S
4..... .219 .148 .173 .173 3.04 S 10-.- .219 .202 .208 .208 2.30 s
5..... .219 .166 .178 .178 2.91 S 11.... .219 .184 .190 .190 2.64 s
6..... .219 .207 .214 .214 2.21 s 12-.- .219 .015 .172 .172 3.06 LL

Test 2
[y0=Q.144 ft, 2^/2^=0.9721

1. .... 0.324 0.223 0.224 3.06 F 6-- .324 .238 .252 .253 2.55 S
2-- .324 0.174 .233 .224 3.06 UL 7.. .324 .279 .286 .287 2.11 S
3__ .324 .194 .223 .224 3.06 IS 8.-... .324 .314 .320 .320 1.79 S
4...- .324 .196 .224 .225 3.04 S 9-- .324 .086 .223 .224 3.06 LL
5-.-- .324 .201 .225 .226 3.02 S

Test3
=0.208 ft, 2/0/2^=1.001

1 --.- 0.538 0.312 0.314 3.06 F 7-. .538 .395 .408 .409 2.06 S
2..-.. .538 0.241 .312 .314 3.06 UL 8--.- .538 .445 .454 .455 1.75 S
3__ .538 .269 .312 .314 3.06 IS 9-. .538 .482 .490 491 1.56 S
4 .... .538 .274 .314 .316 3.03 S 10--- .538 .541 .548 .548 1.32 s
5___._ .538 .302 .328 .330 2.83 s 11-.- .538 .155 .312 .314 3.06 LL
6-- .538 .344 .363 .364 2.45 s
 A100 FLOW OP WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3, Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(efs t A Ha C Remarks Run g (cfs t A Ha C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL K-2 Continued

Teat 4
[#,,=0.283 ft, ya/y e =l.04]
!_. 0.805 0.407 0.411 3.05 F .7.. .805 ,493 .511 .515 2.18 S
2.. - .805 0.307 .407 .411 3.05 UL 8-...- .805 .525 .542 .546 1.99 S
3..... .805 - .849 -.407 .411 3.05 IS 9. . .865 .556 .570 .573 1.86 S
4:.... .805 .386 .424 .428 2.87 S 10..- .805 .593 .606 .609 1.69 S
5.. .805 .437 .462 .466 2.53 S 11.... .805 .621 .631 .634 1.59 S
6.. :805 .463 tSR AQQ
2.36 S . 10 .805 .206 :407 .411 3.05 LL

Tests

1-- 1.20 ff,524 0.532 3.09 F 6-. 1.20 .581 .612 .619 2.46 S
2.. 1.20 . 0.413 .524 .532 3.09 UL 7.. 1.20 .642 .664 .670 2.19 S
3..... 1; 20 .433 -. 524 .532 .3:09 IS 1.20 .702 .719 .725 1.94 S
4.. ... 1.20 .480 .534 -. 542 3.00 S 9..... 1.20 .297 .523 .531 3.10 LL
5. __ 1.20 .528 :570 .577 2.74 S

Test6

I-. 1.60 0.633 0.645 3.09 F 3.- 1.60 .549 .633 .645 3.09 IS
2-..-;- 1.60. 0.510 .633 .645 3.09 TIL 4-. 1.60 .388 .632 .644 3.10 LL

MODEL L
Testl
= 1.04]

1---.. 0.183 0.155 0. 155 '3.00 F 4_--.^ .183 .169 ,179 .179 2.42 S
2.- .183. 0.043 .155 .155 3.00 UL 5-. .183 .209 .212 .212 1.88 S
-3_-.._ .183 .133 .155 .155 3.00 IS 6.- .183 -.006 .155 .155 3.00 LL

Test 2

1. _ 0.524 0.307 0.309 "3.05 F 5 ... .524 .323 .349 .351 2.52 S
2 ... .524 .0. 142 .307 .309 3.05 UL 6.._._. .524 .440 .451 .453 1.72 S
3_._ .524 :.250 .307 -309 3.05 IS 7 :.. . .524 .505 .513 .515 1.42 S
4...... .524 .280 .317 .319 2.91 S 8... ... .524 .072 .307 .309 3.05 LL

Tests
=0.328 ftr »./»,-1.04]

I...... 1.01 0.472 0.478 3.06 F 6... _ 1.01 .512 .549 .555 2.45 S
2. .: 1.01 0.252 .472 .478 3.06 UL 7 . 1.01 .573 .600 .605 2.15 S
3. . 1.01 t396 .472 .478 3.06 IS 8 ... 1.01 .650 .467 .672 1.84 S
4...... 1.01 .434 .492 .498 2.88 S 9 1.01 .740 .752 .756 1.54 S
5 ... 1.01 .455 .504 .510 2,78 S 10.-... 1.01 .187 .472 .478 3.06 LL

Test 4
[»,r-0.411-ft, »«/».«* 1.00]

1 1.49 0.605 0. 616 3.07 F 5 1.49 .633 .680 .682 2.64 S

2 1.49 0.364 .605 .616 3.07 UL 6... 1:49 -.680 -.717 .727 2.40 S
3...... 1.49 .513 .606 .617 3.06 IS 7 1.49 .299 .605 .616 3.07 LL
4... _.. 1.49 .579 .640 .651 2.84 S

TestS
[3/o=0.467 ft, 2/<,/J/c=0.983]

I...... 1.86 0,693 0.709 311 F 3 1.86 .590 .694 .7-10 3.10 IS
2... _ 1.86 0.448 .693 .709 3.11 . UL 4 1.86 .375 .693 .709 3.11 LL
 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS AlOl

TABLE 3. Summary of data, for discharge cJiaracteristics Continued

Run q (cfs A H0 C Remarks Run q (cfs t A H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL M
Test 1

1... ... 0.190 0.155 0.155 3.10 F 5...... .190 .182 .189 .189 2.30 S
2 _ .190 0.101 .157 .157 3.04 UL 6...... .190 .217 .221 .221 1.82 S
3 . _. .190 .140 .157 .157 3.04 IS 7 ... .190 .247 .250 .250 1.52 S
4 ... .190 .160 .171 .171 2.68 S 8... ... .190 .049 .157 .157 3.04 LL

Te8t2
[ ^0 =0.230 ft , Vo/Ve=l .05]

1 0.581 0.327 0.330 3.07 F 6 .581 .362 .379 .381 2.47 S

2...... .581 0.227 .328 .331 3.06 UL 7...... .581 .399 .412 .414 2.18 S
3...... .581 .278 .328 .331 3.06 IS 8- .. .581 .443 .452 .454 1.90 S
4...... .581 .296 .331 .334 3.02 S 9 .581 .499 .506 .508 1.61 S
5...... .581 .323 .348 350 2.80 S 10.. .581 .189 .328 .331 3.06 LL

Test3
[^.=0.334 ft, ydyc= 1.03]
1 ... 1.04 0.482 0.488 3.05 F 6. 1.04 .510 .537 .543 2.60 S
2...... 1.04 0.356 .483 .490 3.04 UL 7 ... 1.04 .554 .574 .580 2.36 S
3... 1.04 .400 .483 .490 3.04 IS 8...... 1.04 .615 .629 .634 2.06 S
1.04 .430 .485 .492 3.02 S 9 ... 1.04 .330 .482 .488 3.05 LL
5 ... 1.04 .471 .506 .512 2.84 S

Test 4
[^.=0.407 ft, p 0/Zfc=0.981]

1 ... 1.51 0.610 0.622 3.08 F 5_..-_. 1.51 .620 .650 .661 2.81 S
2...... 1.51 0.496 .611 .623 3.08 UL 6...... 1.51 .669 .689 .700 2.58 S
3...... 1.51 .526 .611 .623 3.08 IS 7 1.51 .475 .611 .623 3.08 LL
4...... 1.51 .565 616 .628 3.04 S

Test 5
[^.=0.481 ft, Vo/V ,=0.985]

1... ... 1.94 0.710 0.727 3.13 F 3...... 1.94 .621 .712 .729 3.12 IS
2... 1.94 0.603 .712 .729 3.12 UL 4. .. 1.94 .555 712 729 3.12 LL

MODEL AA-2 »
Testl
to.-0.032 ft, Vo/Vc= 1.03]

1 0.0306 0.048 0.048 2.96 F 4. .. .0306 .068 .072 .072 1.60 S

2...... .0306 -0.011 .049 .049 2.88 UL 5...... .0306 .123 .126 .126 0.689 S
3...... .0306 .016 .050 .050 2.78 IS 6...... .0306 -.062 .048 .048 2.96 LL

Test 2

1 ... 0.0814 0.091 0.091 2.98 F 5 .0184 .130 .135 .135 1.73 S
2. .. .0814 0.008 .091 .091 2.98 UL 6.... .. .0814 .184 .187 .187 1.06 S
3... .0814 .039 .092 .092 2.94 IS 7 ... .0814 .232 234 .234 0.756 S
4... ... .0814 .082 .095 .095 2.80 S 8 ... .0814 -.059 .091 .091 2.98 LL

Test3
[00=0.110 ft, y,l

1 .- 0.185 0.157 0.157 2.98 F 5 .185 .235 .241 .241 1.56 S

2...... .185 0.055 .157 .157 2.98 UL 6 ... .185 .296 .300 .300 1.12 S
3...... .185 .096 .158 .158 2.95 IS 7 .185 .336 .339 .339 0.937 S
4...... .185 .181 .192 .192 2.20 S 8... ... .185 -.019 .157 .157 2.98 LL

See footnote at end of table, p. A106.

 A102 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Eun g(cfs ft H0 C Eemarks Run q (cfs t ft H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL AA-2 Continued

Test 4

1... ... 0.304 0.218 0.218 2.98 F 5 ... .304 .221 .250 .250 2.43 8
2... ... .304 0.096 .220 .220 2.94 UL 6... ... .304 .305 .323 .323 1.65 8
3. - .304 .142 .221 .221 2.92 IS 7-. . .304 .412 .425 .425 1.10 8
4 .304 .185 .223 .223 2.88 S 8... ... .304 .026 .219 .219 2.96 LL

TestS
[» .-0.199 ft, ya/y,=lM]
1 0.504 0.304 0.305 2.99 F 5 .504 .343 .366 .367 2.27 8
2... ... .504 0.158 .305 .306 2.98 UL 6... ... .504 .418 432 .433 1.77 8
3... ... .504 .206 .306 .307 2.96 IS 7.. . .504 .479 .490 .491 1.46 8
4. - .504 .250 .307 .308 2.95 S .504 .046 .304 2.99 LL

Test6
[» .-0.260 ft, y,ly e =1.05]
1 ... 0.750 0.392 0.395 3.02 F 6... ... .750 .452 .479 .482 2.24 S
.750 0.233 .393 .396 3.01 UL 7... .750 .487 .507 .510 2.06 8
3 .750 .291 .394 .397 3.00 IS .750 .530 .546 .549 1.84 S
4... .750 .347 .403 .406 2.90 S 9 ... .750 .116 .392 .395 3.02 LL
5...... .750 .407 .441 .444 2.53 S

Test?

1.. - 1.11 0.503 0.510 3.04 F 6...... 1.11 .521 .563 .569 2.57 S
2... 1.11 0.318 .504 .511 3.03 UL 1.11 .567 .600 .606 2.34 S
3... 1.11 .357 .505 .512 3.02 IS 8...... 1.11 .620 .645 .651 2.10 S
4... Lll .395 .506 .513 3.01 S 9--.-_. 1.11 .186 .503 .510 3.04 LL
5 1.11 .467 .526 .532 2.84 S

TestS
fo,,=0.412 ft, y,/y. lM]
1--. 1.50 0.611 0.622 3.06 F 6_._ 1.50 .624 .673 .684 2.65 S
2... 1.50 0.402 .612 .623 3.05 UL 7... ... 1.50 .679 .715 .726 2.42 S
3 ... 1.50 .443 .613 .624 3.04 IS 8...... 1.50 .706 .739 .750 2.31 S
4_.____ 1.50 .498 .616 .627 3.02 S 9 1.50 .274 .611 .622 3.06 LL
5... 1.50 .560 .630 .641 2.92 S

TestS

1 ...... 1.72 0.668 0.682 3.06 F 3 ... 1.72 .503 .671 .685 3.04 IS
2...... 1.72 0.449 .670 .684 3.05 UL 4...... 1.72 .333 .668 .682 3.06 LL

Test 10
[1^=0.499 ft, ^,.=0.9821

1 - 2.06 0.744 0.762 3.09 F 3 2.06 .577 .747 .765 3.07 IS

2...... 2.06 0.515 .746 .764 3.08 UL 4 ... 2.06 .405 .744 .762 3.09 LL

MODEL AB a
Testl
fo«,=0.038ft, jr0/1^=1.001
1-. - 0.0421 0.058 0.058 3.05 F 5... ... .0421 .096 .099 .099 1.36 S
2...... .0421 0.000 .058 .058 3.05 UL 6... .0421 .124 .126 .126 0.948 S
3 .0421 .036 .059 .059 2.98 IS 7...... .0421 .159 .162 .162 .649 S
4...... .0421 .070 .073 .073 2.16 S 8...... .0421 -.105 .058 .058 3.05 LL

See footnote at end of table, p. A106.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A103

TABLE 3. Summary of data fw discharge characteristics Continued

Run q (efs t h Ho C Remarks Run <? (cfs t h H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL As Continued
Test 2

1 0.117 0.115 0.115 3.02 F 6 .117 .147 .154 .154 1.95 S

2 .117 0.036 .117 .117 2.95 UL 7...... .117 .166 .172 .172 1.65 S
3...... .117 .067 .118 .118 2.91 18 8... .117 .199 .203 .203 1.29 S
4... ... .117 .101 .119 .119 2.87 S 9...... .117 -.092 .115 .115 3.02 LL
5...... .117 .125 .135 .135 2.37 S

Tests
yo/yc =i.02]

l.--_. 0.262 0.195 0.195 3.04 F 6..... .262 .234 .249 .249 2.11 S
2__ .262 0.092 .197 .197 3.00 UL 7-. .262 .273 .283 .283 1.74 S
3..... .262 .136 .198 .198 2.97 18 .262 .305 .313 .313 1.50 S
4..... .262 .169 .201 .201 2.91 S g .262 -.093 .195 .195 3.04 LL
.262 .201 .221 .221 2.52 S

Test 4
[00 =0.189 ft, 0o/0t=1.03J
I..... 0.446 0.279 0.280 3.01 F 6.. .446 .339 .357 .358 2.08 S
2..... .446 0.162 .281 .282 2.98 UL 7.-... .446 .365 .380 .381 1.90 S
3.. .446 .232 .282 .283 2.96 IS 8.- .446 .415 .427 .428 1.60 S
4..... .446 .269 .300 .301 2.70 S 9....- .446 .035 .279 .280 3.01 LL
5.. .446 .297 .322 .323 2.43 8

Tests
[0o=0.245 ft, 0o/0«=1.04j

1..... 0.649 0.356 0.358 3.03 F 6..... .649 .370 .402 .404 2.53 S
2..... .649 0.218 .358 .360 3.00 UL 7. . .649 .408 .433 .435 2.26 S
3-. .649 .286 .359 .361 2.99 IS 8__ .649 .450 .470 .472 2.00 S
4..... .649 .314 .363 .365 2.94 S 9.- .649 .095 .356 .358 3.03 LL
5---_. .649 .341 .382 .384 2.73 S

Test6
[8fo=0.308 ft, ya/V, =1.03]

1-- 0.930 0.449 0.454 3.04 F 6. - .930 .444 .488 .493 2.69 S
2.. ... .930 0.285 .450 .455 3.03 UL 7. .- .930 .489 .524 .528 2.42 S
3..... .930 .356 .451 .456 3.02 IS 8-- .930 .535 .561 .565 2.19 S
4..... .930 .382 .453 .458 3.00 S 9.- .930 .141 .449 .454 3.04 LL
5-. .930 .412 .467 .472 2.87 S

Test?
[y0 =0.354 ft, VolV =0.995]

1.. 1.21 0.532 0.540 3.06 F 6-.._- 1.21 .512 .567 .571 2.78 S
2..... 1.21 0.356 .533 .541 3.05 UL 7--._. 1.21 .564 .604 .611 2.54 S
3---.. 1.21 .409 .534 .542 3.04 IS 8-- 1.21 .604 .637 .644 2.35 S
4..... 1.21 .452 .537 .544 3.02 S 9---.. 1 21 .221 .532 .540 3.06 LL
5.. 1.21 .480 .546 .553 2.94 S

Tests
[y0=0.409 ft, Vo/V =0.970]

1__ 1.56 0.627 0.638 3.06 F 6 1.56 .619 .675 .686 2.75 S
2.-... 1.56 0.430 .628 .639 3.05 UL 7-. 1.56 .664 .710 .720 2.55 S
3..... 1.56 .491 .629 .640 3.04 IS 8-. 1.56 .711 .758 .768 2.32 8
4..... 1.56 .520 .631 .642 3.03 S 9.. 1.56 .295 .627 .638 3.06 LL
5..... 1.56 .561 .639 .650 2.97 S
A104 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run g(cfs t h H0 C Remarks Run g (cfs t h H0 C Remarks

No. pet ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL AB Continued
Test 9
[#,,==0.459 ft, P<,/J'«=0.987J

1 ... 1.87 0.705 0.720 3.06 F 4...... 1.87 .615 .712 .727 3.01 8
2 ...... 1.87 0.492 .706 .721 3.05 TIL 5 1.87 .376 .705 .720 3.06 LL
3 ... 1.87 .555 .708 .723 O.
Q (\A
Vrz IS

Test 10
[#,,= 0.057 ft, #,,/#c=1.02]

1 __ 0.0748 0.087 0.087 2.93 F 3 _ .0748 .054 .089 .089 2.84 IS

2... ... .0748 0.017 .088 .088 2.88 UL 4...... .0748 .141 .087 .087 2.93 LL

Test 11
[#,,==0.098 ft, #0/#e=1.03]

I... ... 0.167 0.146 0.146 3.00 F 3 .167 .100 .149 .149 2.91 IS
2...... .167 0.068 .148 .148 2.94 UL 4 . .167 .156 .146 .146 3.00 LL

Test 12

1 1.31 0.556 0.565 3.08 F 15 .193 -.134 .160 .160 3.02 LL

2... ... 1.55 .624 .635 3.06 F 16 .297 .213 .213 3.02 F
3... ... 1.83 .692 .707 3.08 F 17 .297 .104 .214 .214 3.00 UL
4... ... .0400 .056 .056 3.07 F 18 .297 ..ISO .215 .215 2.98 IS
5 .. . .0400 -.010 .057 .057 2.99 UL 19 .297 -.059 .213 .213 3.02 LL
6... .0400 .027 .058 .058 2.90 IS 20 .362 .243 .244 3.01 F
7 ... .0400 -.116 .056 .056 3.07 LL 21 .362 .127 .244 .245 3.00 UL
8 ... .0969 .101 .101 3.04 F 22 362 .170 .245 .246 2.98 IS
9 . .0969 .024 .102 .102 2.99 UL 23.. _ .362 -.005 .243 .244 .3.01 LL
10 .0969 .059 .103 .103 2.95 IS . 24 1.49 .611 .622 3.04 F
11 .0969 -.115 .101 .101 3.04 LL 25 1.61 .642 .654 3.05 F
12..... .193 .160 .160 3.02 F 26 1.77 .682 .696 3.05 F
13 .193 .062 .161 .161 2.99 UL 27.- 2.02 .741 .758 3.06 F
14..... .193 .104 .162 .162 2.96 IS

MODEL AC *
Testl
[^,,=0.038 ft, ya/yc=!M]

1 ... 0.0346 0.052 0.052 2.90 F 5... .0346 .074 .076 .076 1.64 S
2...... .0346 -0.021 .053 .053 2.82 UL 6 .0346 .098 .098 .098 1.12 S
3 . .0346 .003 .054 .054 2.75 IS 7 .0346 .129 .129 .129 0.746 S
4...... .0346 .045 .057 .057 2.53 S 8 .0346 -.074 .052 .052 2.90 LL

Test 2
[#,,=0.068 ft, #<,/#«=1.12]

1 - . 0.0844 0.096 0.096 2.83 F 5_ .0844 .107 .116 .116 2.13 S

2___ .0844 0.011 .097 .097 2.78 UL 6 .0844 .140 .145 .145 1.52 S
3. . .0844 .043 .098 .098 2.74 IS 7 .0844 .185 .187 .187 1.04 S
4...... .0844 .074 .099 .099 2.70 S 8 .0844 -.129 .096 .096 2.83 LL

Tests
[#,,=0.100 ft, #<,/# e =1.08]

1 0.159 0. 145 0.145 2.86 F 6 . .159 .204 .212 .212 1.62 S

2... _ .159 0.048 .147 .147 2.80 UL 7 ... .159 .231 .237 .237 1.37 S
3 .159 .107 .148 .148 2.78 IS 8 . .159 .264 .268 .268 1.14 S
4...... .159 .135 .155 .155 2.59 S 9 .159 -.098 .145 .145 2.86 LL
5 .159 .168 .179 .179 2.09 S

See footnote at end of table, p. A106.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A105

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(cfs t h H, C Remarks Run q (cfs h H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL AC Continued
Test 4
[5/0=0.137 ft, £/ /£/ = 1.09]

j 0.253 0.196 0.197 2.90 F 6... ... .253 .241 .254 .255 1.97 S
2...... .253 0.081 .198 .199 2.85 UL 7...... .253 .278 .287 .288 1.64 S
3... ._. .253 .135 .199 .200 2.83 IS 8 ... .253 .319 .327 .328 1.35 S
4... _ .253 .171 .203 .204 2.75 S Q .253 -.048 .197 .198 2.88 LL
5...... .253 .212 .229 .230 2.30 S

Tests
[j/«=0.175 ft, jr«/jre=1.06]

1 0.379 0.256 0.257 2.90 F 6 ... .379 .319 .335 .336 1.94 S
2...... .379 0.131 .258 .259 2.87 UL 7... ... .379 .379 .390 .391 1.55 S
3_..._. .379 .199 .259 .260 2.85 IS 8 _ .379 .427 .436 .437 1.31 S
4...... .379 997 .266 OA7 2 7J. S 17Q -.001 .257 .258 2.89 LL
5_ _. .379 9(U OQQ 9on 9 d.9 8
Q

Test 6
[5/0=0.226 ft, yjy. =1.08]

1 0.541 0.320 0.322 2.96 F 6 .541 .379 .398 .400 2,14 S

2...... .541 0.174 .321 .323 2.94 UL .541 .431 .445 .447 1.81 S
3 .541 .254 .322 .324 2.93 IS 8 ... .541 .477 .489 .491 1.57 S
4...... .541 .304 .340 .342 2.70 S 9... ... .541 .044 .319 .321 2.97 LL
5 ... .541 .343 .368 .370 2.40 S

Test 7
[£,,=0.257 ft, y0/y<,=lM]
1 0.678 0.370 0.373 2.97 F 6 ... .678 .406 .434 .437 2.35 3
2... ... .678 0.212 .371 .374 2.96 UL 7 .678 .452 .473 .476 2.07 S
3...... .678 .280 .372 .375 2.95 IS 8 ... .678 .489 .506 .509 1.87 S
4... ... .678 .329 .381 .384 2.85 S 9... .678 .075 .370 .373 2.97 LL
5 .678 .368 .405 .408 2.60 S

Tests
[?.=0.30&ft, y,!ye =1.05]

1... ... 0.890 0.440 0.445 3.00 F 6... .890 .416 .466 .471 2.75 3
2...... .890 0.264 .442 .447 2.98 UL 6 .890 .452 .491 .496 2.55 S
3... .890 .329 .443 .448 2.97 IS 7 890 .492 .523 .528 2.32 S
4_.____ .890 .370 .446 .451 2.94 S 8... .890 .528 .553 .557 2.14 S
9... .890 .076 .441 .446 2.99 LL

Test9
[jr.-0. =1.05]

1 ...... 1.14 0.517 0.524 3.00 F 6 1.14 .549 .590 .597 2.47 S
2...... 1.14 0.338 .519 .526 2.99 UL 6... ... 1.14 .598 .630 .637 2.25 S
3... 1.14 .405 .520 .527 2.98 IS 7...... 1.14 .657 .684 .690 1.99 S
4...... 1.14 .468 .535 .542 2.86 S 8_ .. 1.14 .702 .724 .730 1.83 s.
9 1.14 .176 518 .525 3.00 LL

Test 10
1J1.-ISW
1..... . 1.39 0.586 0.596 3.01 F 6 1.39 .666 .701 .710 2.32 S
2...... 1.39 0.401 .588 .598 3.00 UL 7 ... 1.39 .721 .750 .759 2.10 S
3...... 1.39 .479 .590 .600 2.98 IS 8... ... 1.39 .775 .798 .806 1.92 S
4...... 1.39 .551 .613 .620 2.84 S 9...... 1.39 .251 .586 .596 3.01 LL
5...... 1.39 .611 .657 .666 2.55 S
A106 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 3. Summary of data for discharge characteristics Continued

Run ?(cfs t h H, C Remarks Run q (cfs t h H0 C Remarks

No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) No. per ft) (feet) (feet) (feet)

MODEL AC Continued
Test 11
[y,,=0.426 ft, VolVe=l.02}

1..-.- 1.53 0.623 0.635 3.03 F 3.._ 1.53 .492 .626 .638 3.01 IS
1.53 0.421 .625 .637 3.02 UL 4...... 1.53 .303 .623 .635 3.03 LL

Test 12
[y,,=0.445 ft, VolV, =1.01]

1 .-,- 1.65 0,654 0.667 3.03 F 1.65 .461 .657 .670 3.01 IS
1:65' 0.427 656 - . 669 3.02 UL 4... _ 1.65 .323 654 .667 3.03 LL

.Test 13
.=0.471 ft, yjy =0.999]

1 1.84 0.700 (K715 0 f\A

3_._ 1 84 too 7(Vi 719 o m IS
2 1.84 0..464 .703 .718 o no UL 4...... 1.84 .352 .701 .716 3.03 LL

. Test 14
=0.993]

1.. - 1.95 A "TOO

0 7Afi q no

1 Model dimensions and other- details are given in table 1.

2 Head datum takea at mid-depth of screen on crown line.
3 Head datum iaken at smooth surface on crown line.
< Head datum taken at mid*depth of shot on crown line.

- TABLE 4. Summary *of*data for boundary-flayer velocity distribution

Station ? 2 '(feet u U Station * 2? (feet u U Station * z s (feet u U
(feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) xio") (fps) (fps) (feet) XIO3) (fps) (fps)

MODEL A-l
Testl

0.006 1.15 -0.264 0.532 .25 17.8 .629 .J629 1.05 26.2 .961 .961
.006 1.57 .073 .532 .40 1.15 -.057 .720 1.05 34.5 .961 .961
.006 1.98 .264 .532 .40 1.98 .359 .720 1.65 1.15 .625 1.309
.006 2.40 .394 .532 .40 2.82 .474 .720 1.65 1.98 .687 1.309
.006 2.82 .532 .532 .40 4.48 .576 '.720 1.65 2.82 .779 1.309
.006 4.48 .532 .532 .40 6.57 .717 .720 1.65 4.48 1.003 1.309
.006 9.48 .532 .532 .40 9.48 .717 .720 1.65 6.57 1.186 1.309
.006 12.8 .532 .532 .40 17.8 , .717 .720 1.65 9.48 1.276 1.309
.006 14.9 .518 .532 .40 26.2 .724 .720- 1.65 13.7 1.298 1.309
.006 17.8 .512 .532 .65 1.15 -.433 .830 1.65 17.8 1.309 1.309
.006 26.2 .532 .532 .65 1.98 .264 .830 1.65 26.2 1.309 1.309
.10 1.15 .401 .567 .65 2.82 .420 .830 1.65 34.5 1.309 1.309
.10 1.98 .469 .567 .65 4.48 .532 .830 1.85 1.15 .955 1,543
.10 2.82 .543 .567 .65 6.57 .743 .830 1.85 1.98 1.008 1.543
.10 4,48 .543 .567 .65 9.48 .825 .830 1.85 3.23 1.128 1.543
.10 6.57 .558 .567 .65 17.8 .832 .830 1.85 5.32 1.393 1.543
.10 9.48 .567 .567 .65 26.2 .828 .830 1.85 7.82 1.505 1.543
.10 18.0 .567 .567 1.05 1.15 -.057 .961 1.85 10.3 1.522 1.543
.25 1.15 -.073 .629 1.05 1.98 .414 .961 . 1.85 13.7 1.543 1.543
.25 1.98 .351 .629 1.95 2-82 .558 .961 1.85 17.8 1.543 1.543
.25 2.82 .469 .629 1.05 4.48 .751 .961 1.85 26.2 1.543 1.543
.25 4.48 .603 .629 1.05 6.57 .918 .961 1.85 34.5 1.543 1.543
.25 6.57 .625 .629 1.05 9.48 .964 .961
.25 9.48 .621 .629 1.05 17.8 .961 .961

See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A107

TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued

Station 3 03 (feet u U Station 2 z s (feet u U Station 3 z 3 (feet u U

(feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL A-l Continued

Test 2

.006 1.15 .451 1.151 .40 1.15 .469 1.302 1.05 27.0 1.508 1.520
.006 1.98 .533 1.151 .40 1.98 .691 1.302 1.05 34.5 1.513 1.520
.006 2.82 .918 1.151 .40 2.82 .930 1.302 1.05 51.2 1.520 1.520
.006 4.48 1.098 1.151 .40 4.48 1.089 1.302 1.65 1.15 1.172 1.954
.006 6.57 1.151 1.151 .40 6.57 1.123 1.302 1.65 1.98 1.194 1.954
.006 9.48 1.151 1.151 .40 9.48 1.239 1.302 1.65 3.65 1.458 1.954
.006 17.8 1.151 1.151 .40 17.8 1.282 1.302 1.65 7.82 1.707 1.954
.006 26.2 1.151 1.151 .40 26.2 1.302 1.302 1.65 13.7 1.834 1.954
.10 1.15 .613 1.158 .40 34.5 1.302 1.302 1.65 20.3 1.907 1.954
.10 1.98 .733 1.158 .65 1.15 .765 1.455 1.65 27.0 1.933 1.954
.10 2.82 .819 1.158 .65 1.98 .988 1.455 1.65 34.5 1.945 1.954
.10 4.48 1.006 1.158 .65 3.23 1.148 1.455 1.65 51.2 1.950 1.954
.10 6.57 1.111 1.158 .65 5.73 1.269 1.455 1.65 59.5 1.954 1.954
.10 9.48 1.158 1.158 .65 9.48 1.346 1.455 2.00 1.15 1.593 2.212
.10 17.8 1.158 1.158 .65 15.7 1.420 1.455 2.00 1.98 1.637 2.212
.10 26.2 1.158 1.158 .65 22.0 1.437 1.455 2.00 3.65 1.849 2.212
.10 34.5 1.149 1.158 .65 28.2 1.441 1.455 2.00 7.82 2.030 2.212
.25 1.15 .809 1.258 .65 34.5 1.448 1.455 2 00 13.7 2.089 2.212
.25 1.98 .938 1.258 .65 51.2 1.451 1.455 2.00 20.3 2.125 2.212
.25 2.82 .994 1.258 .65 59.5 1.455 1.455 2.00 27.0 2.172 2.212
.25 4.48 1.069 1.258 1.05 1.15 .702 1.520 2.00 34.5 2.188 2.122
.25 6.57 1.153 1.258 1.05 1.98 .776 1.520 2.00 42.8 2.212 2.212
.25 9.48 1.204 1.258 1.05 3.65 1.014 1.520 2.00 51.2 2.212 2.212
.25 17.8 1.260 1.258 1.05 7.82 1.284 1.520 2.00 59.5 2.212 2.212
.25 26.2 1.258 1.258 1.05 13.7 1.413 1.520
.25 34. 5 1.258 1.258 1.05 20.3 1 455 1.520

TestS

.006 1.15 .753 1.733 .40 51.2 1.867 1.867 1.65 4.48 1.943 2.475
.006 1.98 1.365 1.733 .65 1.15 1.275 2.032 1.65 7.40 2.050 2.475
.006 2.82 1.563 1.733 .65 1.98 1.407 2.032 1.65 10.3 2.125 2.475
.006 4.48 1.682 1.733 .65 4.48 1.658 2.032 1.65 15.3 2.240 2.475
.006 6.57 1.712 1.733 .65 7.82 1.784 2.032 1.65 22.0 2.327 2.475
.006 9.48 1.733 1.733 .65 12.0 1.866 2.032 1.65 26.2 2.384 2.475
.006 17.8 1.733 1.733 .65 17.8 1.945 2.032 1.65 42.8 2.410 2.475
.006 26.2 1.733 1.733 .65 26.2 2.003 2.032 1.65 51.2 2.470 2.475
.10 1.15 1.156 1.736 .65 34.5 2.030 2.032 1.65 59.5 2.475 2.475
.10 1.98 1.203 1.736 .65 42.8 2.030 2.032 1.65 67.8 2. 475 2.475
.10 2.82 1.308 1.736 .65 51.2 2.032 2.032 1.85 1.15 1.598 2.624
.10 4.48 1.404 1.736 1.00 1.15 1.314 2.172 1.85 1.98 1.806 2.624
.10 6.57 1.530 1.736 1.00 1.98 1.494 2.172 1.85 4.48 2.060 2.624
.10 9.48 1.688 1.736 1.00 5.32 1.786 2.172 1.85 7.40 2.196 2.624
.10 17.8 1.736 1.736 1.00 9.48 1.915 2.172 1.85 10.3 2.295 2.624
.10 26.2 1.736 1.736 1.00 13.7 2.015 2.172 1.85 15.3 2.420 2.624
.10 34.5 1.732 1.736 1.00 17.8 2.090 2.172 1.85 22.0 2.500 2.624
.25 1.15 1.106 1.772 1.00 26.2 2.150 2.172 1.85 26.2 2.560 2.624
.25 1.98 1.186 1.772 1.00 34.5 2.172 2.172 1.85 34.5 2.580 2.624
.25 4.48 1.453 1.772 1.00 42.8 2.172 2.172 1.85 42.8 2.620 2.624
.25 7.82 1.559 1.772 1.00 51.2 2.172 2.172 1.85 51.2 2.624 2.624
.25 12 0 1.657 1.772 1.30 1.15 1.254 2.226 1.85 59.5 2.624 2.624
.25 17.8 1.746 1.772 1.30 1.98 1.474 2.226 2.00 1.15 1.722 2.759
.25 26.2 1.772 1.772 1.30 5.32 1.797 2.226 2.00 1.98 1.803 2.759
.25 34.5 1.772 1.772 1.30 9.48 1.904 2.226 2 00 4.48 2.176 2.759
.25 47.0 1.772 1.772 1.30 13.7 2.024 2.226 2.00 7.40 2.302 2.759
.40 1.15 1.195 1.867 1.30 17.8 2.097 2.226 2.00 10.3 2.394 2.759
.40 1.98 1.260 1.867 1.30 26.2 2.180 2.226 2.00 15.3 2.532 2.759
.40 4.48 1.552 1.867 1.30 34.5 2.220 2.226 2.00 22.0 2.620 2.759
.40 7.82 1.628 1.867 1.30 42.8 2.222 2.226 2.00 26.2 2.684 2.759
.40 12.0 1.716 1.867 1.30 51.2 2.226 2.226 2.00 34.5 2.702 2.759
.40 17.8 1.808 1.867 1.30 59.5 2.226 2.226 2.00 42.8 2.755 2.759
.40 26.2 1.860 1.867 1.65 1.15 1.504 2.475 2.00 51.2 2.755 2.759
.40 34.5 1.864 1.867 1.65 1.98 1.710 2.475 2.00 59.5 2.759 2.759
.40 42.8 1.867 1.867

See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

A108 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary^layer velocity distribution Continued

Station 2 08 (feet U" 17 Station 3 z a (feet

Station 2 z s (feet U U U U
(feet) X10>) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL A-l Continued

Test 4

.006 1.15 -1.718 -2 452 .65 3.23 2,163 2.752 1.65 9.48 2.682 3.210
.006 1.98 -1.222 2.452 .65 6.15 2.331 2.752 1,65 13.7 2.851 2.210
.006 2.82 1.920 2.452 .65 9.48 2.436 2.752 1.65 17.8 2.947 3.210
.006 - 4.48 2.292 2.452 .65 13.7 2.538 % 752 1.65 22.0 3.040 3.210
-.006 6.57 2.376 2/452 .65 17.8 2.627 2.752 1.65 26.2 3.104 3.210
.006 9.48 2.424 2.452 .65 22.0 >2.676 2.752 L65 34.5 3.160 2.210
.006 17-.8 2.447 2.452 .65 26.2 2:706 2.752 1.65 42.8 3.192 3.210
.006 26.2 ^.450 2.452 .65 34.5 . "2. 740 .2.752 L65 51.2 3.198 3.210
.006 38.7 2.452 2.452 .65 42.8 2.750 2.752 1.65 59.5 3.210 3.210
.10 1.15 1.379 2.426 .65 51.2 - 2. 752 2. 752 1.65 67.8 3.210 3.210
.10 1.98 1.547 2.426 .65 59.5 2.752 2.752 1.65 76.2 3.210 3.210
.10 2.82 1.637 -2.426 1.00 1.15 1.757' 2.862 1.85 1.15 2.047 3.297
.10 4.48 1.776 2.426 1.00 1.98 1.946 2.862 1.85 1.98 2.252 3.297
.10 5.32 1.892 2.426 1.00 2.82 2.075 2.862 .1.85 2.82 2.382 3.297
.10 6.57 2.016 2.426 1.00 6rl5 . 2. 312 2.862 1.85 6.15 2.623 3.297
.10 7.40 2.067 2.426 1.00 4.48 2.464 2.862 1.85 9.48 2.728 3.297
.10 9.48 2.255 2.426 ,1.00 13.7 2.610 2.862 1.85 13.7 2.947 3.297
.10 17.8 2,413 2.426 1.00 17.8 2:707 2.862 ,1.85 17.2 3.058 3.297
.10 26.2 2,426 2.426 l.-OO 22.0 2.765 2.862 1.85 22.0 3.142 3.297
.10 ,42.8 2.426 2-.426 1.00 26.2 2. 811 2:862 1.85 26.2 3.203 3.297
.25 1. 15 1.562 2.458 1:00 34.5 .2.843 2.862 1.85 34.5 3,260 3.297
.25 1.98 1.706 2.458 1.00 42.8 2.862 2.862 1.85 42.8 3.290 3.397
.25 3.23 1.836 2.458 1.00 51.2 2.862- 2.862 L86 ' 51.2 3.292 3.297
.25 6.15 2.007 2.458 1.00 59:5 2.862 2.862 1.85 59.5 3.297 3.297
.25 9-.4S 2.139 2.458 1.30 1.15 1?828 2-976 1.85 67.8 3.297 3.297
.25 13.7 :2.277 2.458 1.30 1.98 1.963 2.976 1.85 76.2 3.297 3.297
.25 17.8 2.377 2.458 1.30 2.82 2.092 2.976 1.85 92.8 3.297 3.297
.25 26.2 2.458 2.458 1.30 6.15 2.354 2.976 2.00 1.15 2.045 3.385
.25 34.5 2-.45S 2.458 1.30 9.48" 2.503 2,976 2.00 1.98 2.270 3.385
.25 51.2 2.468 2.458 1.30 13.7 2.652 2.976 2.00 2.82 2.394 3.385
.40 1.15 1.631 2.545 1.30 17.8 2.736 2.976 2.00 6.15 2.643 3.385
.40 1.98 1.777 2.545 1.30 19.9 2.794 2.976 2.00 9.48 2.810 3.385
.40 3.23 1.948 2.545 1.30 22.0 , 2.812 Z976 2.00 13.7 2.976 3.385
.40 6.15 2.-106 2.545 T:30 26:2 2.854 2.976 -2.00 17.8 3.106 3.385
.40 9.48 2.204 2.545 1.30 34,5 2.917 .2. 976 2.00 22.0 3.194 3.385
.40 13.7 2:347 2.545 1.30 42.8 2.968 2.976 2.00 26.2 3.250 3.385
.40 17.8 2.424 2.545 1.30 51.2 2.976 2.976 2.00 34.5 3.333 3.385
.40 22.0 2. 475. 2.545 1.30 59.5 2.976 2.976 2.00 42.8 3. 361 3.385
.40 26.2 2. 616 2.545 1.30 67.8 2.976 2.976 2.00 51.2 3.372 3.385
.40 34.5 2.545. 2.545 1.65 1.15 1.982 3.210 2.00 59.5 3.382 3.385
.40 42.8 2.545 2.545 1.65 1.98 2.006 "3.210 2.00 67.8 3.385 3.385
.40 51.2 2.545 2.545 1.65 2.82 2.220 3.210 2.00 76.2 3.385 3.385
.65 1.15 1.779 . 2. 752 1.65 .6: 15 2.536 2.210 2.00 92.8 3.385 3.385
.65 1.98 2.020 2.752

'See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A109
TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued
Station « 2 '(feet u U Station * 2 a (feet u U Station * z s (feet u 17
(feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X1Q3) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL A-l Continued

Tests

.006 1.15 -2. 124 2.937 .40 22.0 2.908 2.997 1.65 5.32 3.008 3.815
.006 2.82 2.108 2.937 .40 26.2 2.933 2.997 1.65 9.48 3.261 3.815
.006 4.48 2.710 2.937 .40 34.5 2 982 2.997 1.65 12.8 3.377 3.815
.006 6.98 2.824 2.937 .40 42.8 2! 997 2.997 1.65 16.2 3.498 3.815
.006 7.82 2.854 2.937 .40 59.5 2.997 2.997 1.65 19.9 3.600 3.815
.006 9.48 2.862 2.937 .40 76.2 2.997 2.997 1.65 24.1 3.642 3.815
.006 13.7 2.904 2.937 .65 5.32 2.618 3.232 1.65 28.2 3.676 3.815
.006 17.8 2.934 2.937 .65 9.48 2.840 3.232 1.65 34.5 3.732 3.815
.006 26.2 2.936 2.937 .65 12.8 2.922 3.232 1.65 42.8 3.752 3.815
.006 34.5 2.936 2.937 .65 16.2 2.992 3.232 1.65 51.2 3.782 3.815
.006 47.0 2.937 2.937 .65 19.9 3.080 3.232 1.65 59.5 3.815 3.815
.10 1.15 1.678 2.883 .65 24.1 3.124 3.232 1.65 76.2 3.815 3.815
.10 3.23 2.028 2.883 .65 28.2 3.162 3.232 1.65 92.8 3.815 3.815
.10 5.32 2.256 2.883 .65 34.5 3.204 3,232 1.85 5.32 2.973 3.880
.10 9.48 2.653 2.883 .65 42.8 3.230 3.232 1.85 9.48 3.255 3.880
.10 11.6 2.747 2.883 .65 59.5 3.232 3.232 1.85 12.8 3.364 3.880
.10 13.7 2.816 2.883 .65 76.2 3.232 3.232 1.85 16.2 3.558 3.880
.10 15.7 2.840 2.883 1.00 5.32 2.740 3.428 1.85 19.9 3.657 3.880
.10 17.8 2.850 2.883 1.00 9.48 2.974 3.428 1.85 24.1 3.708 3.880
.10 26.2 2.881 2.883 1.00 12.8 3.074 3.428 1.85 28.2 3.754 3.880
.10 38.7 2.883 2.883 1.00 16.2 3.190 3.428 1.85 34.5 3.805 3.880
.10 51.2 2.883 2.883 1.00 19.9 3.273 3.428 1.85 42.8 3.848 3.880
.25 1.15 1.640 2.872 1.00 24.1 3.320 3.428 1.85 51.2 3.858 3.880
.25 3.23 2.072 2.872 1.00 28.2 3.353 3.428 1.85 59.5 3.876 3.880
.25 5.32 2.236 2.872 1.00 34.5 3.384 3.428 1.85 76.2 3.876 3.880
.25 9.48 2.466 2.872 1.00 42.8 3.402 3.428 1.85 92.8 3.880 3.880
.25 11.6 2.576 2.872 1.00 59.5 3.428 3.428 2.00 5.32 3.026 3.955
.25 13.7 2.704 2.872 1.00 76.2 3.428 3.428 2.00 9.48 3.300 3.955
.25 15.7 2.728 2.872 1.30 5.32 2.794 3.562 2.00 12.8 3.455 3.955
.25 17.8 2.787 2.872 1.3C 9.48 3.070 3.562 2.00 16.2 3.608 3.955
.25 22.0 2.819 2.872 1.30 12.8 3.192 3.562 2.00 19.9 3.715 3.955
.25 26.2 2.847 2.872 1.30 16.2 3.290 3.562 2.00 24.1 3.784 3.955
.25 34.5 2.868 2.872 1.30 19.9 3.372 3.562 2.00 28.2 3.834 3.955
.25 47.0 2.872 2.872 1.30 24.1 3.427 3.562 2.00 34.5 3.881 3.955
.25 59.5 2.872 2.872 1.30 28.2 3.456 3.562 2.00 42.8 3.906 3.955
.40 5.32 2.336 2.997 1.30 34.5 3.510 3.562 2.00 51.2 3.928 3.955
.40 9.48 2.575 2.997 1.30 42.8 3.527 3.562 2.00 59.5 3.955 3.955
.40 12.0 2.678 2.997 1.30 59.5 3.561 3.562 2.00 76.2 3.955 3.955
.40 14.9 2.763 2.997 1.30 76.2 3.562 3.562 2.00 92.8 3.955 3.955
.40 17.8 2.842 2.997 1.30 84.5 3.562 3.562

See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

A110 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABIJS 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued

Station 2 z s (feet u U Station 2 2» (feet u U Station 2 2 '(feet u U

(feet) xio3) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL K-1
Testl

.20 1.15 .242 .774 .60 14.5 .857 .869 1.65 6.98 1.290 1.361
.20 1.98 .319 .774 .60 17.0 .860 .869 i.65 7.82 1.316 1.361
.20 2.82 .439 .774 .60 22.0 .863 .869 1.65 8.65 1.345 1.361
.20 3.65 .528 .774 .60 26.2 .869 .869 1.65 9.48 1.349 1.361
.20 4.48 .599 .774 1.10 1.98 .552 .979 1.65 10.3 1.351 1.361
.20 5.32 .650 .774 1.10 2.82 .616 .979 1.65 11.2 1.351 1.361
.20 6.15 .690 .774 1.10 3.65 .659 .979 1.65 12.8 1.351 1.361
.20 6.98 .735 .774 1.10 4.48 .721 .979 1.65 14.5 1.352 1.361
.20 7.82 .750 .774 1.10 5.32 .784 .979 1.65 17.8 1.357 1.361
.20 8.65 .756 .774 1.10 6.15 .850 .979 1.65 22.0 1.359 1.361
.20 9.48 .756 .774 1.10 6.98 .878. .979 1.65 26.2 1.361 1.361
.20 10.3 .764 .774 1.10 7.82 .902 .979 1.80 1.15 .663 1.516
.20 12.8 .767 .774 1.10 8.65 .926 .979 1.80 2.40 .971 1.516
.20 17.0 .774 .774 1.10 9.48 .951 .979 1.80 3.65 1.200 1.516
.60 1.15 .254 .869 1.10 10.3 .960 .979 1.80 4.90 1.376 1.516
.60 1.98 .351 .869 1.10 11.2 .960 .979 1.80 6.15 1.416 1.516
.60 2.82 .451 .869 1.10 12.0 .965 .979 1.80 6.98 1.452 1.516
60 3.65 .528 .869 1.10 12.8 .968 .979 1.80 7.82 1.465 1.516
.60 4.48 .585 .869 1.10 14.5 .968 .979 1.80 8.65 1.481 1.516
.60 5.32 .642 .869 1.10 17.8 .976 .979 1.80 9.48 1.499 1.516
.60 6.15 .702 .869 1.10 22.0 .976 .979 1.80 10.3 1.507 1.516
.60 6.98 .757 .869 1.10 26.2 .979 .979 1.80 11.2 1.507 1.516
.60 7.82 .788 .869 1.65 1.15 .671 1.361 1.80 12.8 1.507 1.516
.60 8.65 .809 .869 1.65 2.40 .795 1.361 1.80 14.5 1.508 1.516
.60 9.48 .828 .869 1.65 3.65 1.034 1.361 1.80 17.8 1.511 1.516
.60 10.3 .853 .869 1.65 4.90 1.204 1.361 1.80 22.0 1.513 1.516
.60 11.2 .853 .869 1.65 6.15 1.254 1.361 1.80 26.2 1.516 1.516
.60 12.8 .857 .869

Test 2

.20 1.15 .401 1.347 1.10 9.07 1.551 1.638 1.65 5.73 1.769 1.993
.20 1.98 .542 1.347 1.10 9.65 1.566 1.638 1.65 6.98 1.872 1.993
.20 2.82 .746 1.347 1.10 10.3 1.586 1.638 1.65 8.23 1.912 1.993
.20 3.65 .923 1.347 1.10 10.7 1.599 1.638 1.65 9.07 1.942 1.993
.20 4.48 1.060 1.347 1.10 11.2 1.598 1.638 1.65 9.90 1.958 1.993
.20 5.32 1.174 1.347 1.10 11.6 1.602 1.638 1.65 10.3 1.962 1.993
.20 6.15 -1.250 1.347 1.10 12.0 1.602 1.638 1.65 10.7 1.965 1.993
.20 6.98 1.302 1.347 1.10 12.7 1.620 1.638 1.65 11.2 1.965 1.993
.20 7.82 1.336 1.347 1.10 13.2 1.607 1.638 1.65 11.6 1.971 1.993
.20 8.65 1.341 1.347 1.10 13.8 1.620 1.638 1.65 12.0 1.976 1.993
.20 9.48 1.341 1.347 1.10 14.5 1.635 1.638 1.65 12.8 1.979 1.993
.20 13.7. 1.349 1.347 1.10 15.3 1.628 1.638 1.65 14.9 1.980 L993
.20 17.8 1.347 1.347 1.10 16.2 1.635 1.638 1.65 17.0 1.985 1.993
.20 26.2 1.347 1.347 1.10 17.8 1.638 1.638 1.65 19.5 1.985 1.993
.60 1.15 .401 1.444 1.10 22.0 1.638 1.638 1.65 22.0 1.993 1.993
.60 1.98 .552 1.444 1.10 26.2 1.638 1.638 1.65 26.2 1.992 1.993
.60 2.82 .778 1.444 1.40 1.15 .774 1.756 1.65 30.3 1.993 1.993
.60 3.65 .926 1.444 1.40 1.98 .968 1.756 1.80 1.15 .929 2.095
.60 .4.48 1.054 1.444 1.40 2.82 1. 114 1.756 1.80 1.98 1.165 2.095
.60 5.32 1.156. 1.444 1.40 3.65 1.304 1.756 1.80 2.82 1.428 2.095
.60 .6.57 1.269 1.444 1.40 4.48 1.411 1.756 1.80 3.65 1.618 2.095
.60 7.82 '1,358 1.444 1.40 5.32 l;495 1.756 1.80 4.48 1.774 2.095
.60 9.48 -1.414 1.444 1.40 6.15 1.574 1.756 1.80 5.32 1.882 2.095
.60 1ft 3 1.437 1.444 1.40 6.98 1.630 1.756 1.80- 6.15 1.938 2.095
.60 11.2 1.437 1.444 1.40 7.82 1.674 1.756 1.80 6.98 1.994 2.095
.60 12.8 1,437 1.444 1.40 8.65 1.706 1.756 1.80 7.82 2.024 2.095
.60 14.9 1.437 1.444 1.40 9.48 , 1.732 1.756 1.80 8.65 2.045 2.095
.60 17.8 1.441 1.444 1.40 10.3 1.750 1.756 1.80 9.48 2.068 2.095
.60 22.0 1.442 1.444 1.40 11.2 1.750 .1.756 1.80 10.3 2.067 2.905
:eo 26.2 1.444 1.444 1.40 12.8 1.750 1.756 1.80 11.2 2.081 2.095
1.10 1.15 .603 1.638 1.40 14.5 . 1.752 1.756 1.80 12.0 2.089 2.095
1.10 1.98 .702 1.638 1.40 17.0 1.753 1.756 1.80 12.8 2.089 2.095
1.10 a 23 .976 1.638 1.40 21.2 . 1. 755 . 1.756 1.80 14.5 2.093 2.095
1.10 5.32 1.287 1.638 1.40 26.2 1.756 1.759 1.80 16.2 2.093 2.095
1.10 6.57 1.408 1.638 1.65 1,15 .937 1.993 1.80 17.8 2.093 2.095
1.10 7.15 1.448 1.638 1.65 3.23 1.409 1.993 1.80 22.0 2.095 2.095
1.10 7.82 1.490 1.638 1.65 4.48 1.644 1.993 1.80 26.2 2.095 2.095
1.10 8.40 1.526 1.638

See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS Alll

TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued

Station * z* (feet u U Station 2 z»(feet u U Station » z«(feet u C7

(feet) X1Q3) (fps) (fps) (feet) X1Q3) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL K-l Continued

Test3

.20 1.15 .501 1.962 1.10 2.82 1.562 2.221 1.65 18.7 2.502 2.524
.20 2.82 1.110 1.962 1.10 4.48 1.789 2.221 1.65 20.3 2.511 2.524
.20 3.65 1.503 1.962 1.10 6.15 1.956 2.221 1.65 22.0 2.520 2.524
.20 4.48 1.642 1.962 1.10 7.82 2.040 2.221 1.65 24.1 2.522 2.524
.20 5.32 1.825 1.962 1.10 9.48 2.120 2.221 1.65 26.2 2.523 2.524
.20 6.15 1.837 1.962 1.10 11.2 2.135 2.221 1.65 30.3 2.524 2.524
.20 7.82 1.892 1.962 1.10 12.8 2.145 2.221 1.65 34.5 2.524 2.524
.20 9.48 1.927 1.962 1.10 14.5 2.174 2.221 1.80 1.15 1.531 2.583
.20 11.2 1.935 1.962 1.10 16.2 2.193 2.221 1.80 2.82 1.942 2.583
.20 13.7 1.962 1.962 1.10 17.8 2.205 2.221 1.80 4.90 2.152 2.583
.20 17.8 1.962 1.962 1.10 19.9 2.213 2.221 1.80 6.98 2.270 2.583
.20 22.0 1.962 1.962 1.10 22.0 2.220 2.221 1.80 8.65 2.356 2.583
.60 1.15 .571 1.977 1.10 26.2 2.221 2.221 1.80 11.2 2. 419 2.583
.60 2.82 1.153 1.977 1.10 30.3 2.221 2.221 1.80 12.8 2.455 2.583
.60 4.48 1.450 1.977 1.10 34.5 2.221 2.221 1.80 14.5 2.490 2.583
.60 6.15 1.707 1.977 1.65 1.15 1.368 2.524 1.80 16.2 2.514 2.583
.60 7.82 1.804 1.977 1.65 2.82 1.905 2.524 1.80 17.8 2.523 2.583
.60 9.48 1.890 1.977 1.65 4.90 2.130 2.524 1.80 19.9 2.545 2.583
.60 11.2 1.935 1.977 1.65 6.98 2.253 2.524 1.80 22.0 2.562 2.583
.60 12.8 1.949 1.977 1.65 8.65 2.305 2.524 1.80 24.1 2.568 2.583
.60 14.5 1.955 1.977 1.65 10.3 2.352 2.524 1.80 26.2 2.574 2.583
.60 17.8 1.970 1.977 1.65 12.0 2.390 2.524 1.80 30.3 2.580 2.583
.60 22.0 1.976 1.977 1.65 13.7 2.416 2.524 1.80 34.5 2.582 2.583
.60 26.2 1.976 1.977 1.65 15.3 2.448 2.524 1.80 38.7 2.583 2.583
.60 34.5 1.977 1.977 1.65 17.0 2.476 2.524 1.80 42.8 2.583 2.583
1.10 1.15 1.117 2.221

Test 4

.20 1.15 1.736 2.640 .60 24.1 2.830 2.840 1.40 36.2 2.962 2.975
.20 1.98 1.814 2.640 .60 26.2 2.835 3.840 1.40 38.7 2.970 2.975
.20 2.82 1.998 2.640 .60 30.3 2.836 2.840 1.40 40.7 2.970 2.975
.20 3.65 2.130 2.640 .60 32.4 2.838 2.840 1.40 42.8 2.973 2.975
.20 4.48 2.225 2.640 .60 34.5 2.840 2.840 1.40 51.2 2.973 2.975
.20 5.32 2.280 2.640 1.10 1.15 1.694 2.900 1.40 59.5 2.975 2.975
.20 6.15 2.345 2.640 1.10 3.23 2.032 2.900 1.65 1.15 1.842 3.103
.20 6.98 2.400 2.640 1.10 5.32 2.182 2.900 1.65 5.32 2.376 3.103
.20 7.82 2.453 2.640 1.10 7.40 2.300 2.900 1.65 9.48 2.573 3.103
.20 8.65 2.500 2.640 1.10 9.48 2.416 2.900 1.65 13.7 2.723 3.103
.20 9.48 2.524 2.640 1.10 11.6 2.484 2.900 1.65 17.8 2.840 3.103
.20 10.3 2.540 2.640 1.10 13.7 2.580 2.900 1.65 22.0 2.934 3.103
.20 11.2 2.560 2.640 1.10 15.7 2.655 2.900 1.65 26.2 3.002 3.103
.20 12.8 2.600 2.640 1.10 17.8 2.704 2.900 1.65 29.5 3.036 3.103
.20 14.5 2.616 2.640 1.10 19.9 2.744 2.900 1.65 32.8 3.062 3.103
.20 16.2 2.626 2.640 1.10 22.0 2.795 2.900 1.65 36.2 3.080 3.103
.20 17.8 2.640 2.640 1.10 24.1 2.835 2.900 1.65 38.7 3.086 3.103
.20 22.0 2.640 2.640 1.10 26.2 2.860 2.900 1.65 41.2 3.093 3.103
.20 26.2 2.640 2.640 1.10 28.2 2.885 2.900 1.65 44.5 3.098 3.103
.20 34.5 2.640 2.640 1.10 30.3 2.897 2.900 1.65 51.2 3.102 3.103
.60 1.15 1.743 2.840 1.10 34.5 2.898 2.900 1.65 59.5 3.103 3.103
.60 1.98 1.980 2.840 1.10 42.8 2.900 2 900 1.80 1.15 2.302 3.193
.60 3.23 2.184 2.840 1.40 1.15 1.737 2.975 1.80 3.23 2.573 3.193
.60 5.32 2.336 2.840 1.40 5.32 2.245 2.975 1.80 5.32 2.684 3.193
.60 7.40 2.442 2.840 1.40 9.48 2.405 2.975 1.80 11.6 2.850 3.193
.60 9.48 2.537 2.840 1.40 13.7 2.585 2.975 1.80 17.8 3.010 3.193
.60 11.6 2.624 2.840 1.40 17.8 2.694 2.975 1.80 24.1 3.120 3.193
.60 13.7 2.690 2.840 1.40 21.2 2.973 2.975 1.80 30.3 3.170 3.193
.60 15.7 2.744 2.840 1.40 24.5 2.842 2.975 1.80 34.5 3.190 3.193
.60 17.8 2.768 2.840 1.40 27.8 2.893 2.975 1.80 42.8 3.192 3.193
.60 19.9 2.802 2.840 1.40 31.2 2.940 2.975 1.80 51.2 3.193 3.193
.60 22.0 2.824 2.840 1.40 33.7 2.955 2.975

See footnotes at end of table, p. A114.

A112 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued

Station 2 z« (feet u U Station * z«(feet u U Station * z«(feet u U
(feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL K-l Continued

TestS

.20 1.15 2.200 3.060 1.10 3.65 2.722 3.562 1.65 3.65 2.900 3.893
.20 2.82 2.503 3.060 1.10 7.40 2.987 3.562 1.65 7.40 3.222 3.893
.20 4.48 2.643 3.060 1.10 11.2 3.194 3.562 1.65 13.7 3.526 3.893
.20 6.15 2.736 3.060 1.10 15.7 3.338 3.562 1.65 19.9 3.700 3.893
.20 6.98 2.786 3.060 1.10 19.9 3.416 3.562 1.65 26.2 3.795 5.893
.20 7.82 2.826 3.060 1.10 24.1 3.475 3.562 1.65 32.4 3.840 3.893
.20 9.48 2.903 3.060 1.10 28.2 3.512 3.562 1.65 38.7 3.876 3.893
.20 11.2 2.960 3.060 1.10 32.4 3.530 3.562 1.65 44.9 3.886 3.893
.20 14,5 3.036 3.060 1.10 36.6 3.548 3.562 1.65 51.2 3.890 3.893
.20 17.0 3.054 3.060 1.10 42.8 3.560 3.562 1.65 59.5 3.893 3.893
.20 17.8 3.057 3.060 1.10 51.2 5.562 3.562 1.65 67.8 3.893 3.893
.20 22.0 3.060 3.060 1.10 59.5 3.562 3.562 1.80 1.15 2.383 3.923
.20 26.2 3.060 3.060 1.40 1.15 2.342 3.747 1.80 3.65 2.855 3.923
.60 1.15 2.345 3.269 1.40 3.65 2.825 3.747 1.80 7.40 3.183 3.923
.60 3.23 2.662 3.269 1.40 7.40 3.113 3.747 1.80 13.7 3.533 3.923
.60 5.32 2.803 3.269 1.40 13.7 3.402 3.747 1.80 20.3 3.713 3.923
.60 8.65 2.964 3.269 1.40 19.9 3.562 3.747 1.80 27.0 3.818 3.923
.60 12 0 3.080 3.269 1.40 26.2 3.643 3.747 1.80 33.7 3.862 3.923
.60 15.3 3.165 3.269 1.40 32.4 3.698 3.747 1.80 40.3 3.892 3.923
.60 18.7 3.216 3.269 1.40 38.7 3.722 3.747 1.80 47.0 3.918 3.923
.60 22.0 3.256 3.269 1.40 42.8 3.743 3.747 1.80 53.7 3.920 3.923
.60 25.3 3.265 3.269 1.40 47.0 3.747 3.747 1.80 60.3 3.922 3.923
.60 28.7 3.265 3.269 1.40 51.2 3.747 3.747 1.80 67.0 3.922 3.923
.60 34.5 3.269 3.269 1.40 59.5 3.747 3.747 1.80 73.7 3.923 3.923
.60 42.8 3.269 3.269 1.40 67.8 3.747 3.747 1.80 80.3 3.923 3.923
1.10 1.15 2.228 3.562 1.65 1.15 2.507 3.893

MODEL AA-1
Testl

.006 1.15 -.728 1.091 .40 34.5 1.242 1.242 1.65 1.15 .990 1.942
.006 1.98 .841 1.091 .40 42.8 1.242 1.242 1.65 1.98 1.140 1.942
.006 2.82 .940 1.091 .40 51.2 1.242 1.242 1.65 3.65 1.299 1.942
.006 3.65 .974 1.091 .65 1.15 .775 1.416 1.65 5.32 1.384 1.942
.006 4.48 1.003 1.091 .65 1.98 .878 1.416 1.65 7.40 1.475 1.942
.006 5.32 1.026 1.091 .65 3.65 1.037 1.416 1.65 9.48 1.549 1.942
.096 6.57 1.091 1.091 .65 5.32 1.124 1.416 1.65 13.7 1.660 1.942
.006 9.48 1.091 1.091 .65 7.40 1.168 1.416 1.65 17.8 1.756 1.942
.006 17.8 1.092 1.091 .65 9.48 1.233 1.416 1.65 26.2 1.872 1.942
.006 26.2 1.089 1.091 .65 13.7 1.303 1.416 .65 34.5 1.926 1.942
.10 1.15 .713 1.142 .65 17.8 1.342 1.416 .65 42.8 1.942 1.942
.10 1.98 .794 1.142 .65 26.2 1.375 1.416 .65 51.2 1.942 1.942
.10 2.82 .828 1.142 .65 34.5 1.415 1.416 .65 59.5 1.942 1.942
.10 3.65 .847 1.142 .65 42.8 1.416 1.416 .85 1.15 1.068 2.108
.10 4.48 .866 1.142 .65 51.2 1.416 1.416 .85 1.98 1.156 2.108
.10 5.32 .885 1.142 1.00 1.15 .625 1.509 .85 3.65 1.352 2.108
.10 6.57 .979 1.142 1.00 1.98 .690 1.509 .85 5.32 1.569 2.108
.10 9.48 1.030 1.142 1.00 3.65 .835 1.509 .85 7.40 1.582 2.108
.10 17.8 1.142 1.142 1.00 5.32 .960 1.509 .85 9.48 1.682 2.108
.10 26.2 1.142 1.142 1.00 7.40 1.029 1.509 .85 13.7 1.818 2.108
.25 1.15 .702 1.180 1.00 9.48 1.150 1.509 .85 17.8 1.916 2.108
.25 1.98 .735 1.180 1.00 13.7 1.278 1.509 .85 26.2 2.040 2.108
.25 3.65 .818 1.180 1.00 17.8 1.384 1.509 1.85 34.5 2.088 2.108
.25 5.32 .897 1.180 1.00 26.2 1.454 1.509 1.85 42.8 2.10 2.108
.25 7.40 .946 1.180 1.00 34.5 1.509 1.509 1.85 51.2 2. 107 2.108
.25 9.48 .985 1.180 1.00 42.8 1.509 1.509 1.85 59.5 2.108 2.108
.25 13.7 1.080 1.180 1.00 51.2 1.509 1.509 2.00 1.15 1.163 2.260
.25 17.8 1.133 1.180 1.30 1.15 .753 1.654 2.00 1.98 1.292 2.260
.25 26.2 1.180 1.180 1.30 1.98 .854 1.654 2.00 3.65 1.412 2.260
.25 34.5 1.180 1.180 1.30 3.65 1.019 1.654 2.00 5.32 1.459 2.260
.25 42.8 1.180 1.180 1.30 5.32 1.116 1.654 2.00 7.40 1.654 2.260
.40 1.15 .666 1.242 1.30 7.40 1.204 1.654 2.00 9.48 1.779 2.260
.40 1.98 .746 1.242 1.30 9.48 1.254 1.654 2.00 13.7 1.936 2.260
.40 3.65 .828 1.242 1.30 13.7 1.371 1.654 2.00 17.8 2.052 2.260
.40 5.32 .943 1.242 1.30 17.8 1.467 1.654 2.00 26.2 2.179 2.260
.40 7.40 1.011 1.242 1.30 26.2 1.585 1.654 2.00 34.5 2.234 2.260
.40 9.48 1.032 1.242 1.30 34.5 1.654 1.654 2.00 42.8 2.260 2.260
.40 13.7 1.118 1.242 1.30 42.8 1.654 1.654 2.00 51.2 2.260 2.260
.40 17.8 1.147 1.242 1.30 51.2 1.654 1.654 2.00 59.5 2.259 2.260
.40 26.2 1.211 1.242

JSee footnotes at end of table, p. >AflJl4.

 DISCHARGE OVER EMBANKMENT-SHAPED WEIRS A113
TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued
Station 2 z a (feet u 17 Station 2 2 '(feet u U Station 2 2' (feet u U
(feet) X103) (fps) (fps) (feet) XW (fps) (fps) (feet) X10') (fps) (fps)

MODEL AA-1 Continued

Test 2

.006 1.15 1.411 2.437 .40 5.32 1.645 2.524 1.30 9.48 2.160 2.976
.006 1.98 1.581 2.437 .40 7.40 1.770 2.524 1.30 13.7 2.362 2.976
.006 2.82 1.722 2.437 .40 9.48 1.867 2.524 1.30 17.8 2.510 2.976
.006 3.65 1.834 2.437 .40 11.6 1.964 2.524 1.30 22.0 2.652 2.976
.006 4.48 1.935 2.437 .40 13.7 2.054 2.524 1.30 26.2 2.776 2.976
.006 5.32 2.028 2.437 .40 15.7 2.136 2.524 1.30 30.3 2.842 2.976
.006 6.57 2.119 2.437 .40 17.8 2.220 2.524 1.30 34.5 2.890 2.976
.006 7.82 2.236 2.437 .40 22.0 2.343 2.524 1.30 38.7 2.936 2.976
.006 9.48 2.290 2.437 .40 26.2 2.450 2.524 1.30 42.8 2.962 2.976
.006 11.6 2.343 2.437 .40 34.5 2.508 2.524 1.30 51.2 2.976 2.976
.006 13.7 2.388 2.437 .40 42.8 2.524 2.524 1.30 59.5 2.976 2.976
.006 17.8 2.430 2.437 .40 51.2 2.525 2.524 1.65 1.15 1.490 3.163
.006 26.2 2.437 2.437 .40 59.5 2.524 2.524 1.65 5.32 1.983 3.163
.006 38.7 2.437 2.437 .65 1.15 1.362 2.714 1.65 11.6 2.352 3.163
.10 1.15 .850 2.393 .65 4.48 1.756 2.714 1.65 17.8 2.360 3.163
.10 1.98 .960 2.393 .65 8.65 2.030 2.714 1.65 22.0 2.768 3.163
.10 2.82 1.052 2.393 .65 11.6 2.164 2.714 1.65 26.2 2.888 3.163
.10 3.65 1.128 2.393 .65 13.7 2.257 2.714 1.65 30.3 2.980 3.163
.10 4.48 1.216 2.393 .65 15.7 2.330 2.714 1.65 34.5 3.060 3.163
.10 5.32 1.322 2.393 .65 17.8 2.397 2.714 1.65 38.7 3.110 3.163
.10 6.57 1.433 2.393 .65 22.0 2.525 2.714 1.65 42.8 3.135 3.163
.10 7.40 1.545 2.393 .65 26.2 2.618 2.714 1.65 51.2 3.162 3.163
.10 9.48 1.772 2.393 .65 30.3 2.665 2.714 1.65 59.5 3.163 3.163
.10 11. C 2.016 2.393 .65 34.5 2.698 2.714 1.65 76.2 3.163 3.163
.10 13.7 2.196 2.393 .65 38.7 2.714 2.714 1.85 1.15 1.459 3.277
.10 17.8 2.325 2.393 .65 42.8 2.714 2.714 1.85 5.32 2.011 3.277
.10 26.2 2.393 2.393 .65 51.2 2.714 2.714 1.85 11.6 2.421 3.277
.10 34.5 2.393 2.393 .65 59.5 2.714 2.714 1.85 17.8 2.701 3.277
.10 42.8 2.393 2.393 1.00 1.15 1.193 2.788 1.85 24.1 2.877 3.277
.25 1.15 1.075 2.395 1.00 5.32 1.665 2.788 1.85 30.3 3.045 3.277
.25 2.82 1.252 2.395 1.00 9.48 1.964 2.788 1.85 34.5 3.133 3.277
.25 4.48 1.412 2.395 1.00 13.7 2.210 2.788 1.85 38.7 3.180 3.277
.25 6.15 1.472 2.395 1.00 17.8 2.360 2.788 1.85 42.8 3.240 3.277
.25 7.82 1.568 2.395 1.00 22.0 2.502 2.788 1.85 47.0 3.256 3.277
.25 9.48 1.676 2.395 1.00 26.2 2.630 2.788 1.85 51.2 3.272 3.277
.25 11.6 1.814 2.395 1.00 30.3 2.680 2.788 1.85 59.5 3.277 3.277
.25 13.7 1.935 2.395 1.00 34.5 2.730 2.788 1.85 76.2 3.277 3.277
.25 15.7 2.060 2.395 1.00 38.7 2.745 2.788 2.00 1.15 1.573 3.368
.25 17.8 2.160 2.395 1.00 42.8 2.788 2.788 2.00 5.32 2.061 3.368
.25 26.2 2.380 2.395 1.00 51.2 2.788 2.788 2.00 11.6 2.462 3.368
.25 34.5 2.395 2.395 1.00 59.5 2.788 2.788 2.00 17.8 2.765 3.368
.25 51.2 2.395 2.395 1.30 1.15 1.470 2.976 2.00 24.1 2.977 3.368
.40 1.15 1.322 2.524 1.30 5.32 1.916 2.976 2.00 30.3 3.138 3.368
.40 2.82 1.452 2.524

MODEL KA
Test 1

.20 1.15 .872 1.323 1.10 5.32 1.109 1.562 1.65 3.23 1.416 1.954
.20 2.82 1.013 1.323 1.10 8.65 1.228 1.562 1.65 5.32 1.531 1.954
.20 4.48 1.102 1.323 1.10 12.0 1.308 1.562 1.65 8.65 1.650 1.954
.20 6.15 1.172 1.323 1.10 15.3 1.376 1. 562 1.65 12.8 1.756 1.954
.20 7.82 1.234 1.323 1.10 18.7 1.448 1.562 1.65 17.8 1.842 1.954
.20 9.48 1.282 1.323 1.10 22.0 1.492 1.562 1.65 22.8 1.886 1.954
.20 11.2 1.298 1.323 1.10 25.3 1.518 1.562 1.65 27.8 1.924 1.954
.20 12.8 1.312 1.323 1.10 28.7 1.540 1.562 1.65 32.8 1.942 1.954
.20 14.5 1.323 1.323 1.10 32.0 1.555 1.562 1.65 37.8 1.950 1.954
.20 16.2 1.323 1.323 1.10 35.3 1.562 1.562 1.65 42.8 1.954 1.954
.20 17.8 1.323 1.323 1.10 38.7 1.562 1.562 1.65 47.0 1.954 1.954
.20 26.2 1.323 1.323 1.10 42.8 1.562 1.562 1.65 55.3 1.954 1.954
.20 34.5 1.323 1.323 1.40 1.15 .899 1.733 1.65 63.7 1.954 1.954
.60 1.15 .638 1.451 1.40 3.23 1.127 1.733 1.65 76.2 1.954 1.954
.60 2.82 .937 1.451 1.40 5.32 1.253 1.733 1.80 1.15 1.246 2.094
.60 4.90 1.082 1.451 1.40 8.65 1.378 1.733 1.80 3.23 1.464 2.094
.60 6.98 1.145 1.451 1.40 10.7 1.439 1.733 1.80 5.32 1.620 2.094
.60 9.07 1.186 1.451 1.40 12.8 1.480 1.733 1.80 8.65 1.760 2.094
.60 11.2 1.228 1.451 1.40 15.7 1.541 1.733 1.80 12.8 1.879 2.094
.60 13.2 1.262 1.451 1.40 17.8 1.574 1.733 1.80 17.8 1.948 2.094
.60 15.3 1.302 1.451 1.40 22.8 1.636 1.733 1.80 22.8 2.002 2.094
.60 17.4 1.341 1.451 1.40 27.8 1.678 1.733 1.80 28.7 2.047 2.094
.60 19.5 1.377 1.451 1.40 32.8 1.708 1.733 1.80 34.5 2.080 2.094
.60 22.0 1.409 1.451 1.40 37.8 1.723 1.733 1.80 40.3 2.093 2.094
.60 26.2 1.440 1.451 1.40 42.8 1.733 1.733 1.80 46.2 2.093 2.094
.60 34.5 1.450 1.451 1.40 51.2 1.733 1.733 1.80 52.0 2.093 2.094
.60 42.8 1.451 1.451 1.40 59.5 1.733 1.733 1.80 59.5 2.093 2.094
1.10 1.15 .815 1.562 1.40 76.2 1.733 1.733 1.80 67.8 2.094 2.094
1.10 3.23 1.008 1.562 1.65 1.15 1.168 1.954 1.80 80.3 2.094 2.094

See footnotes at end of table, p.

A114 FLOW OF WATER OVER DAMS AND WEIRS

TABLE 4. Summary of data for boundary-layer velocity distribution Continued

Station 2 z s (feet u U Station 2 z s (feet u U Station 2 z s (feet u U

(feet) XW) (fps) (fps) (feet) X 103) (fps) (fps) (feet) X103) (fps) (fps)

MODEL KA Continued
Test 2

.20 1.16 1.021 2.566 .60 67.8 2.713 2.713 1.40 80.3 2.875 2.875
.20 2.82 1.234 2.566 1.10 1.15 1.018 2.774 1.65 1.15 1.495 3.042
.20 4.48 1.380 2.566 1.10 3.23 1.279 2.774 1.65 5.32 1.972 3.042
.20 6.15 1.519 2.566 1.10 7.40 1.604 2.774 1.65 9.48 2.200 3.042
.20 7.82 1.630 2.566 1.10 13.7 1.970 2.774 1.65 15.7 2.452 3.042
.20 9.48 1.764 2.566 1.10 19.9 2.195 2.774 1.65 22.0 2.604 3.042
.20 11.6 1.903 2.566 1.10 26.2 2.368 2.774 1.65 30.3 2.762 3.042
.20 16.7 2.166 2.566 1.10 32.4 2.502 2.774 1.65 38.7 2.912 3.042
.20 19.1 2.318 2.566 1.10 38.7 2.642 2.774 1.65 47.0 2.982 3.042
.20 22.0 2.436 2.566 1.10 44.9 2.710 2.774 1.65 55.3 3.006 3.042
.20 28.2 2.522 2.566 1.10 51.2 2.743 2.774 1.65 63.7 3.024 3.042
.20 34.6 2.663 2.566 1.10 59.5 2.766 2.774 1.65 72.0 3.040 3.042
.20 40.7 2.566 2.566 1.10 67.8 2.774 2.774 1.65 80.3 3.042 3.042
.20 47.0 2.566 2.566 1.10 76.2 2.774 2.774 1.65 88.7 3.042 3.042
.20 55.3 2.566 2.566 1.10 84.5 2.774 2.774 1.80 1.15 1.412 3.143
.60 1.16 1.360 2.713 1.40 1.15 1.302 2.875 1.80 5.32 1.933 3.143
.60 3.23 1.615 2.713 1.40 4.48 1.667 2.875 1.80 9.48 2.203 3.143
.60 7.40 1.896 2.713 1.40 9.48 1.951 2.875 1.80 17.8 2.543 3.143
.60 13.7 2.177 2.713 1.40 15.7 2.190 2.875 1.80 26.2 2.756 3.143
.60 19.9 2.404 2.713 1.40 22.0 2.378 2.875 1.80 38.7 2.968 3.143
.60 26.2 2.563 2.713 1.40 30.3 2.568 2.875 1.80 51.2 3.076 3.143
.60 32.4 2.648 2.713 1.40 38.7 2.688 2.875 1.80 63.7 3.123 3.143
.60 38.7 2.685 2.713 1.40 47.0 2.782 2.875 1.80 72.0 3.140 3.143
.60 44.9 2.708 2.713 1.40 55.3 2.857 2.875 1.80 80.3 3.143 3.143
.60 61.2 2.712 2.713 .1.40 63.7 2.875 2.875 1.80 88.7 3.143 3.143
.60 59.6 2.712 2.713 1.40 ' 72.0 2.875 2.875 1.80 101.2 3.143 3.143

1 See table 2 for values of head (ft) and discharge (q).

2 Distance in feet (model) from upstream edge of upstream shoulder. Crown line is at station 1.67 feet for
all models.
8 Distance measured perpendicularly from roadway surface to position of pitot tube.

fr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1964 O 690-195