laboratory report on sluice gate and hydraulic jump

Project description
– laboratory report on sluice gate and
hydraulic jump

Module code Module title Module leader Assignment tutor Assignment title Assignment number

CE2206 Hydraulics S.E.Catmur Dr R.Jayaratne Coursework – laboratory report on sluice gate and hydraulic jump This is the one and only piece of assessed coursework. (There is an earlier piece of formative work for feedback). 25% of the overall assessment, as stated in the module specification Laboratory sessions take place on 17/20th March 2014. Online (through TurnItIn) 11:59pm on Sunday 27th April 2014 7, 8, 9, 10

Weighting Handout date Submission date Learning outcomes assessed by this assignment Turnitin submission requirement Moodle Assignment submission used? Other electronic system used? Additional information

Yes No NO

Turnitin GradeMark feedback used? Moodle Assignment feedback used? Are submissions / feedback totally electronic?

Yes No Yes

Form of assessment: Individual work

Number of assignment copies required: 1 Assignment to be presented in the following format: On-line submission as one document though TurnItIn

Soft copy: Soft copy not required [as electronic submission]

Note to all students Assignment cover sheet – not required for this module as electronic submission

Module CE2206 – Hydraulics Coursework 2014
The procedure in the laboratory is as follows: For a measured volumetric flow rate, take measurements at the following cross sections of channel width, water depth and longitudinal location: ? ? ? ?

Upstream of sluice gate Downstream of sluice gate

Start of hydraulic jump End of hydraulic jump

Assessment Submission: Prepare a report on your group’s sluice gate and hydrau lic jump laboratory work. Your individual report is to be word processed, under the following headings:

1. Introduction 2. Research methodology (inc. Apparatus and procedure) 3. Data (inc. Readings and noted Errors) 4. Analysis (inc. calculations, sketchs, graphs & error analysis) 5. Discussion (inc. discussion of validity of results and comparison with literature) 6. Comments on health and safety 7. Conclusions 8. References

READ ALSO : Quantitative Methods

Format for word processed work Arial font must be used. The main text must be at 12 point font and with a line spacing of 1.5. Larger fonts may be used for section headings. Margins must be 40mm left (binding margin) other three margins must be 20mm. The main text must be justified to both margins. Equations and formula must be centred across the page and be written in Microsoft WORD equation editor. Equations must be numbered. The equation numbers must be aligned to the right.

Ensure that your report includes the following: ? ? ? ? Sketch of the appearance of the hydraulic jump, and comparison to published information for the calculated value of the upstream Froude number. Calculation of the depth ratio of the hydraulic jump, and comparison with the predicted value from the hydraulic jump formula. Calculation of the length of the jump, as a multiple of the height, and comparison with published information. Graph showing the water surface and computed total energy head lines along the length of the apparatus, with a discussion of the results.

Note that a theory section is not required in your report, as this was covered in lectures. You are not asked to derive formulae from first principles in this report, but just quote the results you are using for comparison, giving a proper reference to their source.

The relevant learning outcomes from the module specification are as follows: At the end of this Module, students will be able to:

use quantitative and computational methods to analyse hydraulics from laboratory and design examples

8. 9.

solve practical and design based problems in hydraulics communicate knowledge and facts; interpret findings and recommendations in the form of drawings and written reports.

10.

describe basic health and safety issues

The recovery resit coursework (if required) will involve a report based on laboratory data to be provided. S.Catmur Feb 2014

Assessment Criteria
CHARACTERISTICS OF WORK TO BE ASSESSED RANGE OF MARKS A+ A A85 -100 75 – 84 70 – 74 DISTINCTIVE WORK: Clear statement of key findings, Detailed critical discussion of validity findings and comparison with published work; fully coherent. In depth discussion of Health and Safety issues. Clear and accurate descriptions of apparatus, procedure & analysis have been given. Citations & references fully conforms to Harvard Style. Clear, informative, relevant introduction; Requested structure followed, content in correct sections, conventions of academic writing have been followed; English, grammar, spelling & tenses excellent, points are cohesive & guidance to reader exemplary. COMMENDABLE WORK: Clear statement of key findings, some discussion of validity findings, and an attempt to compare with published findings made; reasonably coherent. Detailed discussion of Health and Safety issues. Clear, informative, relevant introduction (minor omissions); Descriptions of apparatus, procedure & analysis are mostly clear and accurate (minor errors/omissions). Good evidence of citations with associated references; Some minor omissions or deviations from Harvard Style. Requested structure followed, content in correct sections (minor errors/omissions), conventions of academic writing have been followed; minor errors in English, grammar, spelling & tenses; points are mostly cohesive & guidance to reader good. SATISFACTORY WORK: Statement of obvious findings, weak discussion of validity findings and weak comparison with published work; reasonably coherent. Reasonable discussion of Health and Safety issues. Introduction reasonably clear but missing information; descriptions of apparatus & procedure reasonably clear but missing information. Reasonable citations and reference list; partially conforms to Harvard style. Reasonably cohesive, basic structure followed, content sometimes in wrong sections, conventions of academic writing have generally been followed (some errors/omission); English, grammar, spelling & tenses could be improved. ACCEPTABLE WORK: Statement of obvious findings but little/no discussion of validity findings and little/no comparison with published work; reasonably coherent. Basic health and safety issues weakly presented; Introduction presents overall aim but little other information; basic descriptions of apparatus & procedure & analysis presented but detail missing; Citations included but incomplete; Reference list included and an attempt at Harvard style has been made. Reasonably cohesive, basic structure followed, content sometimes in wrong sections, conventions of academic writing have generally been followed (some errors/omission); English, grammar, spelling & tenses could be greatly improved. MARGINALLY UN ACCEPTABLE WORK: Statement of obvious findings but no discussion of validity findings and no comparison with published work; lacking in guidance and coherence. List of health and safety issues with little/no explanation; Introduction not clear or missing information; descriptions of apparatus & procedure & analysis presented but detail missing and unclear; No evidence of citation but reference list included; Lacking in cohesion, some errors in basic structure, content in wrong sections, conventions of academic writing have been partially followed (inconsistent throughout or some major errors/omission); English, grammar, spelling & tenses need to be improved. UNSATISFACTORY WORK: Discussion not related to your findings; no attempt to compare findings with published work. No identification of H&S issues; Lacking in information; inaccurate explanations of apparatus/procedure/analysis; No evidence of citations and reference list incomplete; Lacking in cohesion, requested structure and conventions of academic writing have not been followed; English, grammar, spelling & tenses need to be substantially improved. Non-submission / non-attendance to laboratory class