School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment
Civil Engineering Subject Group
Assessment Brief Document for UG Courses
Assessment Title:
Flow through a Sluice Gate (Lab 1)
Course(s):
UG Courses (Civil Engineering)
Module Code and Name:
CIVE 30002 – Infrastructure Engineering 1
Assessment Number:
CW1
Assessment Type and
Weighting:
Lab Report
Lab 1
15% of final module
grade for this SUB
ELEMENT [Final module
grade is computed as
50% from ELEMENT 1
(exam) and 50% from
ELEMENT 2 (CWs)]
Module Lecturer:
Dr. Shatirah Akib
Module Leader:
Dr. Agnes Boscoe-Wallace
Issue Date:
Week 16
(10/11/2021)
Submission Date:
Week 20
Full time students 3pm, Wednesday, 8th
Dec 2021
Part time students 3pm, Thursday, 9th
Dec 2021
Submission Format:
Feedback to be provided by:
Module Dropbox
Week 29 (09/02/2022)
Module Learning Outcomes:

Conceptualise and design appropriate transport and water infrastructure

Evaluate if designs are fit for purpose whilst recognising the importance of sustainability
and environmental risk issues

Make informed judgements regarding the suitability of a proposed infrastructure projects
and be able to critically evaluate alternative designs.
1
Weightings for each assessment task:
TASK
Weighting
1
Introduction and Methodology
30%
2
Results and Analysis
30%
3
Discussion and Conclusion
40%
Total
100%
Note:
Task Specific Grading Criteria (TSGC) for each of these tasks are provided in this brief.
The weightings relate to this assessment only and not for the entire module.
Your CW submission should comprise of Lab 1 in 1 file. APPENDIX (For detailed calculations etc),
excel calculation spreadsheets should be attached in separate files.
Key Skills / Knowledge / Attributes in this Assessment:
☒
Technical Knowledge
Producing calculations, concept
designs. Practising taught skills.
☐
Sustainability
☐
or
detailed
Health & Safety
Considering the use of materials and designing to be
environmentally, financially and socially sustainable.
Professional Development
☐
Considering safe working practices including
long term health effects.
☐
Inter-disciplinary learning
Developing key attributes on the way to gaining
professional qualification.
☒
Developing skills in using software, IT
and/or other lab/surveying equipment
Application and integration of knowledge and
understanding of other engineering disciplines
Employability
☒
Team working
☒
Creativity and reflection
☐
Communication skills
☒
Problem solving
☒
Self-management
☒
Decision making
2
LAB 1
EXPERIMENT: Flow under a Vertical sluice gate
Aim: To compare
1) Experimental and theoretical depths of flow at vena contracta,
2) Force on the sluice gate using hydrostatics and momentum equation and
3) Experimental and theoretical depths of flow after the hydraulic jump
Theory: Energy, Momentum and Continuity equations.
Procedure:
For a particular discharge, set up flow conditions with a hydraulic jump as shown in the sketch.
Measure the discharge (Q), the height of gate opening (x) and depths y1, y2, y3 and y4.
Calculations:
1) Compare experimental and theoretical depths of flow at vena
contracta (ie depth of flow at Y2)
Assume that energy is conserved (E1= E2) in accelerating flow – check this with a Pitot tube
Calculation Steps
i.
Discharge, Q = volume/ time AND Unit discharge q = Q/b (where b =channel width)
ii.
Velocity v1 = Q / b.y1 = q/y1
iii.
Velocity head = V12/2g
iv.
E1 = Y1 + V12/2g, now as E2 = E1
3
v.
Y2 + V22/2g = E2 - solve this equation for Y2
vi.
Iterative solution: V2 2/2g = E2- Y2 start with initial assumption Y2 = 0
vii.
Compare theoretical and measured values of y2 and explain any discrepancy.
viii.
Compute the value of Cc = y2/x. Compare with published values.
2) Compare force on the sluice gate using hydrostatics and momentum
equation:
a) Momentum theory [Fg(M)]
b) Hydrostatics [Fg(H)]
Momentum theory:
i. Calculate v2 = q/y2 (Y2 is measured value)
½ gy12- Fg (M) – ½ gy22 = qv2- qv1
ii.
Momentum equation ----
iii.
Calculate the actual force on the gate Fg(M) (N/m) as all other variables are known.
Hydrostatic:
iv) Assuming a hydrostatic pressure distribution: Fg(H) = ½g (Y1 - X)2 (N/m)
v) Compare Fg(M) and· Fg(H); explain the reasons for any difference.
4
3) Compare experimental (measured) and theoretical (calculated)
depths of flow (Y4) after the hydraulic jump
i.
Apply momentum equation (for the Control Volume from 3 to 4)  ½ gy32- ½ gy42 = qv4- qv3
ii.
Substituting V4 = q/y4 and re-arranging: ½ gy32 + qv3 = ½ gy42 + q2/y4
iii.
Solve for Y4 using an iterative method:
iv.
Compare theoretical Y4 [obtained above in (iii)] with the measured value of Y4
v.
Compare the Y4 also using the CONJUGATE DEPTH equation for a hydraulic jump.
vi.
Calculate the % energy loss across the hydraulic jump
COURSEWORK – Guidelines for doing the CW is as follows.
The CW should include (in addition to the usual cover page etc)
EXPERIMENT TITLE:
INTRODUCTION:
 OBJECTIVES
 THEORY
Assessment Criteria
METHODOLOGY:
 PROCEDURE &
APPARATUS
Introduction and Methodology
30%
Results and Analysis
30%
Discussion and Conclusion
40%
Word count: 1500 words without references (+20%)
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS (ONE PAGE):
DISCUSSION (3/4 PAGE):
CONCLUSIONS (1/4 PAGE IN BULLET POINTS):
REFERENCES
APPENDIX (For detailed calculations etc), excel calculation spreadsheet with the formula embedded should
be attached as a separate file attachment. Please do not attach link of your excel file in your word file.
[Adapted from a similar lab sheet from Dr Keith Shepard – Kingston Uni - with permission]
5
Plagiarism & referencing
In your assignment, where you to refer to information, literature or other material that you have
researched or read you must make it clear where the information has originated by citing and
referencing the material in the ‘Harvard’ style.
Students are also reminded that all submitted work must be their own work, and penalties for
plagiarism (such as collusion or copying) range from capped/zero marks and to dismissal from the
course and termination of studies.
Further details of Harvard referencing, can be found by clicking on “Citing References: a guide to
NTU Library Harvard style” at the following link:
https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/current_students/studying/skills-for-success/referencing/ntu-libraryharvard.html
6
Task Specific Grading Criteria
Criteria
First
Weighting
Exc.
Introduction &
Methodology
30%
High
Mid
2.1
Low
The Aim and Objectives
are clear and precise.
Generates enthusiasm
and interest in the
reader.
Exceptional description
of methods.
High
2.2
Mid
Low
Aim & objectives have
a good link to the
rationale and set out a
good scope of work
with appropriate (but
perhaps not optimum)
techniques.
Very good knowledge
and understanding of
the area of study as
the student is typically
able to relate
facts/concepts together
with some ability to
apply to known/taught
contexts; including
primary sources, to
advance work/direct
arguments.
Very good description
and reasoning of
methods in sufficient
detail.
High
Mid
Third
Low
Aim & Objectives are
linked to the rationale
and set out an
adequate scope of
work, albeit with some
limitations.
Knowledge and
understanding are
sufficient to deal with
terminology, basic facts
and concepts but fails
to make meaningful
synthesis; some ability
to select and evaluate
reading/research
however work may be
more generally
descriptive; uses a
limited range of
sources to advance
work, with little use of
primary literature.
Methods described
briefly but with
insufficient detail to
enable replication.
Reason for some
method decisions
unclear or
inappropriate.
Results & Analysis
30%
Rigorous and
appropriate data
analysis with
interpretation and
reporting that
Very good quantity and
relevance to data
collected with
appropriate analysis
and the outcomes of
7
Good quantity and
relevance to data
collected with
appropriate and
satisfactory analysis.
High
Mid
Fail
Low
Aim & objectives reflect
some plans; however,
these are inadequately
linked to the rationale
or reflect a
misunderstanding of
some key concepts.
Insufficient knowledge
and understanding of
the area of study;
some ability to select
and evaluate
reading/research
however work is more
generally descriptive;
uses a very limited
range of sources to
advance work, with
little use of primary
literature; may rely
heavily on
inappropriate internet
sources.
Marg.
Mid
Low
Aim and objectives are
missing or incomplete
or inappropriate.
Highly insufficient
knowledge or
understanding of the
area of study;
understanding is
typically at the word
level with facts being
reproduced in a
disjointed or
decontextualized
manner; typically
ignores important
sources in development
of work and literature
inappropriately used.
Method description is
insufficient. Decisions
are not reasoned.
Methods described
briefly with some areas
lacking sufficient detail.
Inadequate reasons for
decisions.
Adequate quantity and
relevance to data
collected. Data
analysis appropriate to
Limited quantity and
relevance to data
collected. Data
analysis attempted but
Discussion & Conclusion
40%
demonstrates excellent
understanding of the
methods used.
Exceptional
presentation and
description of results to
a publishable standard.
Exceptional breadth
and depth of
knowledge and
understanding of the
area of study
demonstrated,
providing insight that
may be of publishable
standard. Level of
critical evaluation/
synthesis and of
reading/research is
beyond expectations.
the analysis accurately
interpreted and
reported. The
approach was well
adapted with very
good reasoning to
meet developing
project needs.
Appropriate
presentation of results
(e.g. clear use of
tables and figures with
appropriate titles and
legends). Results are
described clearly and
reflect the data
presented, with key
findings clearly
highlighted.
Very good knowledge
and understanding of
the area of study as
the student is typically
able to relate
facts/concepts together
with some ability to
apply to known/taught
contexts. Very good
evaluation of results,
demonstrating
understanding of the
relevance and
significance of findings.
Discussion
appropriately informed
by relevant literature
and shows ability to
make meaningful
connections.
Presentation of results
generally good, though
may have limitations in
some areas (e.g. poor
use of titles/legends).
Results described well
but with some
inaccuracies/
inconsistencies. Key
findings are highlighted
but could be clearer.
Good knowledge and
understanding of the
area of study balanced
towards the descriptive
rather than critical or
analytical. Some good
evaluation of results,
demonstrating some
awareness of the
relevance and
significance of findings.
Work draws on relevant
literature and
demonstrates an ability
to make meaningful
connections in places
the results but limited
in scope.
Presentation of results
generally satisfactory,
though there are
limitations in some key
areas (e.g. poor use of
tables/figures).
Description of results is
brief and may show
inconsistencies. Key
findings may not be
highlighted for the
reader.
Knowledge and
understanding of the
area of research is
limited to basic facts
and concepts.
Satisfactory evaluation
of results, though
discussion is largely
descriptive and lacks
depth. Limited
evidence of the ability
to relate the work to
other relevant
literature, management
principles
is largely is
inadequate.
Presentation of results
with insufficient clarity.
Description of results is
minimal and
inconsistent. Key
findings are not
highlighted for the
reader.
Insufficient knowledge
and understanding of
the area of study.
Insufficient evaluation
of the results. The
work is largely
descriptive and fails to
relate to other relevant
literature, management
principles.
Demonstrates
exceptional, accurate,
broad & deep
understanding in fully
addressing the brief.
Demonstrates accurate
knowledge &
understanding in fully
addressing the brief.
Demonstrates
understanding to
satisfactorily meet the
majority of the brief.
Demonstrates adequate
knowledge in meeting
the basic requirements
of the brief.
Limited quantity and
quality of relevant
theory or evidence,
unsupported assertions
and/or major omissions
8
Selects & assembles
relevant theory and
evidence in an
exceptional,
comprehensive and
coherent argument.
Exceptional contextual
use of correct
terminology
Well-reasoned
arguments supported
by reasonable theory
and evidence.
Very good use of
correct terminology
9
Theory and evidence
implied in the work,
which may be
otherwise mostly
descriptive.
Satisfactory use of
terminology.
Conspicuous
irrelevance / wholly
descriptive and without
supporting evidence.
Inconsistent or
incorrect use of
terminology.
as well as the use of
correct terminology