ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: 0971-5010 (Print) 2164-3040 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Hydraulics of submerged radial gates with a sill

Fahmy Salah Fahmy Abdelhaleem

To cite this article: Fahmy Salah Fahmy Abdelhaleem (2017): Hydraulics of submerged radial
gates with a sill, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2016.1273798

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2016.1273798

Published online: 04 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 04 January 2017, At: 13:27
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2016.1273798

Hydraulics of submerged radial gates with a sill

Fahmy Salah Fahmy Abdelhaleem
Benha Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Benha University, Benha, Egypt

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper the submerged flow through radial gates with and without a gate sill was experimentally Received 3 April 2016
investigated. The effect of different gate sill heights on contraction coefficient, discharge coefficient, Accepted 14 December 2016
submerged jump length, backup water depth, flow energy dissipation, and velocity distribution with KEYWORDS
different hydraulic parameters was analyzed and graphically presented. A combination of dimensional Radial gate; gate
and regression analysis tools was employed to develop reliable formulas for estimating the studied sill; submerged flow
parameters. This paper concluded the negative influence of sills under submerged radial gates and characteristics; submerged
justified the local scour phenomena occurred immediately downstream the stilling basin of some hydraulic jump; velocity field
existing submerged radial gates with a gate sill in Egypt.

1. Introduction for both free and submerged flow conditions (e.g. Ibrahim
2000; Negm et al. 1993a; Negm et al. 1998; Saad 2011; Sarhan
Radial gates are among the most common features of water
2013).
control structures in many irrigation networks overall the
The effect of stilling basin shape on submerged jump charac-
world. They are employed to regulate both water level and flow
teristics was experimentally investigated by Ali and Mohamed
discharge in irrigation canals. Radial gates are preferred over
(2010). They believed that a flat basin provided with positive
vertical sluice gates for several advantages. They require smaller
multi-steps at the end produces the minimal length of the sub-
hoisting force, have easier operation, produce lower flow
merged jump compared with sloped or sudden drop shape
disturbance, and provide better discharge (Sehgal 1996). The
(Ali et al. 2009).
flow through radial gates is classified as either free flowing or
Mohamed et al. (2015) assessed the effect of different sill
submerged depending upon the tailwater depth and the size of
configurations and arrangements on submerged flow charac-
the gate opening. Notwithstanding many studies can be found
teristics downstream the radial gates of new Naga Hammadi
in the literature on free and submerged radial gates (e.g. Toch
regulator in Egypt. They showed that the sill over stilling basin
1955; Buyalski 1983; Clemmens et al. 2003; Bijankhan et al.
has a great effect on flow characteristics and local scour depth
2011; Clemmens and Wahl 2012; Bijankhan et al. 2013; Ali
formed downstream the regulator especially for a sill with right
et al. 2015), a few works on radial gates with sill exists.
and slopped faces at the upstream, and downstream, respec-
Hydraulic jumps are often formed downstream of gates.
tively. Moreover, the effect of end step of stilling basin on
In order to confine hydraulic jumps, stilling basins are con-
submerged flow through a radial gate was clarified by Elsaeed
structed to improve the dissipation of the excessive energy
et al. (2016).
of the incoming supercritical flow. In submerged jumps, the
Salem (1990) introduced discharge coefficients for a radial
flow characteristics, including jet extension and streamwise
gate equipped with a sill of flat or curved top with different sill
velocity decay, differ notably from free jumps and the rate of
heights. He indicated that the sill of curved top increases the
energy dissipation being a function of submergence ratios.
value of discharge coefficient. El-Ganainy et al. (1996) con-
Submerged hydraulic jumps are less efficient in dissipating
ducted experimental and theoretical study to investigate the
energy. Therefore, longer stilling basins are required for sub-
flow through a radial gate with a gate sill. They developed a
merged hydraulic jumps compared with free hydraulic jumps
theoretical formula to estimate the flow coefficient for a radial
(Rajaratnam 1965, 1967). The flow characteristics of submerged
gate with a gate sill. They also examined velocity distributions
hydraulic jumps have been studied by numerous investiga-
at three sections downstream of the radial gate. They supposed
tors (e.g. Abdel-Aal 2004; Bhuiyan et al. 2011; Ma et al. 2001;
that higher sills reduce the submergences of the flow jet issuing
McCorquodale and Khalifa 1980; Narasimhan and Bhargara
beneath the gate but greater energy loss results upstream the
1976).
contracted section.
Sills and baffle blocks over stilling basin are often used to
A review of the literature revealed that only a few studies
stabilize the jump, decrease its length, and increase the energy
performed on radial gates with a sill under gate. According to
dissipation (Peterka 1984).
the bathymetric survey that carried out downstream of new
The presence of a sill under a gate reduces its height, and
Esna, and new Naga Hammadi regulators in Egypt, a signifi-
accordingly decreases the pressure forces acting on it. Moreover,
cant scour has been observed immediately downstream of their
the sill reduces the weight of the gate and the operation force,
stilling basins, although a gate sill was installed beneath radial
and hence the gate becomes more economic. Many investiga-
gates of these structures (Amin 2013).
tions have been performed on sills under vertical sluice gates

CONTACT  Fahmy Salah Fahmy Abdelhaleem  fahmy.hri@bhit.bu.edu.eg

© 2017 Indian Society for Hydraulics
2   F. S. F. ABDELHALEEM
With this aspect in mind, a series of laboratory experiments
was performed to investigate the hydraulic behavior of the sub-
merged flow through a radial gate with a gate sill over a wide
range of Froude numbers and submergence ratios. This range
of the experimental parameters was selected on the basis of
the practical ranges that are common in new Esna, new Naga
Hammadi, and new Assuit (under construction) regulators
in Egypt, in which submerged hydraulic jump stilling basins
are employed. The main objective of this investigation was to
improve the current understanding of the effect of a sill below
radial gates, and hence update the design criteria of such con-
trol structures for long time stability.
2.  Experimental setup and procedures
The experiments were performed at the laboratory of the
Hydraulics Research Institute, (HRI), National Water Research
Centre, (NWRC), Egypt. Measurements were conducted in a
zero slope flume with smooth concrete bed and Plexiglas walls.
The flume has a width of 1.0 m, height of 1.20 m, and length of
26.0 m. It has an upstream head tank to supply water at a con-
stant level and an adjustable tailgate at the downstream end to
produce the submerged flow condition. At 12.0 m downstream
of the head tank, a radial gate was installed. The radial gate
was made of steel with sharp edge seal of 5.0 mm thickness.
For all experiments, the radial gate radius was 524 mm, the
trunnion-pin height was 390 mm, the gate width was 810 mm
and the downstream channel width was 1.0 m. The difference
between the gate and channel width was ascribed to two abut-
ments symmetrically installed on both sides of the gate. The dis-
charge was measured with a magnetic flowmeter and a digital
point gauge with an accuracy of ±0.1 mm was used to measure
water depths. In order to visualize the flow field, the dye injec-
tion method and a digital camera were utilized. The backup
water depth was measured with the static side of a 5 mm diam-
eter Prandtl tube that was placed in the center of the flume. An
electromagnetic current-meter was employed to measure the
velocity components. Five vertical velocity sections were allo-
cated at the center plane of the flume at distances 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
2.0, and 3.0 B (B is the flume width) form the downstream toe
of the sill. Four point velocity measurements were carried out
for each velocity profile at depths equal to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8
of the water depth. Additional measurement at 20 mm above
the bed was also conducted to represent the near bed velocity.
An average of 25 readings of each point velocity was taken.
A definition sketch of the side view of a submerged radial
gate with a sill under gate is shown in Figure 1. In this figure,
a is the gate trunnion-pin height (height of gate pivot point
above invert), r is the radius of the radial gate, w is the gate
opening, yo the upstream water depth, y1 is the water depth
at vena contracta (minimum jet thickness), Lj is the length of
the submerged hydraulic jump, y3 is the backup water depth
downstream of the gate, yt is the tailwater depth, Z is the sill
height, and θ is gate leaf angel, [θ = cos−1((a − Z − w)/r)].
Sills under the radial gate were made of wood according to
the design ranges of new Esna, new Naga Hammadi, and new
Assuit regulators. Three heights of the gate sill (0.0, 100, and
200 mm) were considered. In all tests, sills of 700 mm length
have rounded upstream face and the downstream face of the
sills have a ramp with a slope of 1 V:5H. Sills were mounted
under the radial gate in such a way that the gate lip converge
the midpoint of the sill when the gate is closed, Figure 2.
All tests were carried out with the gate under submerged
flow condition; this hydraulic condition was appraised by visual
inspection and quantified by applying the deduced formula of
Bijankhan et al. (2013), Figure 3.
Steady-state hydraulic parameters including upstream
water depth, supercritical depth, backup depth, tailwater
depth, and discharge were measured at different gate open-
ings. The upstream and tailwater depths, yo and yt were meas-
ured at distances 3.0 m upstream and 9.0 m downstream of
the gate, respectively. These distances were always far away
from any zone of surface turbulences. The minimum jet thick-
ness, y1 was measured at a distance of 1.15 times the gate
opening from the gate lip; this is the approximate location of
the vena contracta (Rajaratnam 1967). Also a red rope was
employed to indicate the location of the vena contracta. The
magnetic current-meter was immersed under the water sur-
face to define the zero-velocity line separating forward and
backward flow in order to identify the boundary of the sub-
merged jump. In all cases, the upstream head (yo − Z) was kept
constant. In this study, the submergence ratio is defined as
S = (yt − y2)/y2, where y2 is the subcritical sequent depth for
a free jump corresponding to the supercritical depth of y1,
computed by the illustrious Belanger equation (Chow 1959).
A total of 108 tests were performed for which the ranges of
the compiled data are illustrated in Table 1. A computer test
system integrated with data logger was employed to instantly
receive all the measurements and save them. In terms of the
accuracy and reliability, measurements included (Q, yo, w,
y1, y3, Lj, and yt) were repeated four times to estimate uncer-
tainty. It was observed that the mean absolute error associated
with measurements for considered parameters was in range
between ±0.06 and ±3.57%.
3.  Results and discussion
3.1.  Contraction coefficient
The measured gate opening w and the measured pressure head
in the jet at the vena contracta y1, were used to compute the
contraction coefficients, (δ = y1/w). It was observed that in all
tests, the pressure distribution within the incoming jet can ade-
quately assumed to be hydrostatic. Figure 4 depicts the meas-
ured values of δ and those available from previous researches.
The contraction coefficient decreases with the gate lip angle θ
which agrees with the previous investigators.
Current experimental data were in a very good agreement
with those carried out by Tel (2000) and confirmed the formula
of Toch (1955). Figure 4 does not support the recommendation
of Mohamed et al. (2015) to apply the formula of Henderson
(1966), especially in case of submerged radial gates. The formu-
las of Webby (1999) and Shayan et al. (2014) are dependent on
the effect of the relative gate opening w/yo, and hence showed
a discrepancy with the data of the present study. Thus, this
study essentially confirms that there is a small influence of w/yo
on the contraction coefficient and it is a function of θ. This is
consistent with Clemmens et al. (2003) and more experimen-
tal data may be useful to support this. The height of sill has a
small effect on the contraction coefficient as indicated by the
slight deviations between their fitted trends. The values of δ
were ranged from 0.647 to 0.751, 0.657 to 0.759, and 0.671 to
0.811 as the sill height increased from 0.0 to 10 cm and then
to 20 cm, respectively.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING   3

Table 1. Ranges of experimental parameters.

Parameter Symbol Values
Discharge Q 0.04–0.19 m3/s
Gate opening w 0.027–0.162 m
Tailwater depth yt 0.32–0.48 m
Froude number F1 1.63–6.44
Submergence factor S 0.56, 0.97, 1.67, 2.25, 3.5
Sill height Z 0.0, 0.1, 0.2 m

Figure 1. Definition sketch for a radial gate with under gate sill.
acceleration due to gravity, and DRF is a discharge reduction
factor defined by Bijankhan et al. (2013) as

(yo − yt )∕w
DRF = (2)
𝜆 (yt − y2 )∕w + (yo − yt )∕w

In which λ is a constant parameter and y2 is the subcritical

sequent depth for a free jump computed by the Belanger equa-
tion. The dimensionless group in Equation (1) takes the fol-
lowing form:
yc ( y )b1
= a1 o
(DRF)c1 (3)
w w
where a1, b1, and c1 are numerical constants that should be
determined form the experimental data. The classical discharge
equation of submerged flow through gates is written as (Chow
1959).

(4)
√
Q = Cd wb 2g(yo − yt )

In which Cd is the discharge coefficient.

Solving Equations (3) and (4) for the discharge coefficient
yields:
Figure 2. Modeled sill configurations under a radial gate. � � �b �1.5
1
y
a1 wo (DRF)c1
3.2.  Discharge coefficient (5)
Cd = √
w −0.5 2(yo − yt )
Bijankhan et al. (2013) applied the dimensionless method and
the incomplete self similarity (ISS) concept for calibrating the Using the current experimental data, numerical constants of
submerged radial gates and they offered the following func- Equation (5) were calibrated and are listed in Table 2.
tional relationship: Equation (5) can be applied to calculate the discharge coef-
(y y ) ficients for submerged flow through radial gates without sill
f c , o , DRF = 0 (1) (R2 = 0.92). The mean absolute errors associated with Equation
w w
√ (5), was 1.89%. The comparison between calculated Cd values
where yc =  q2 ∕g is the critical water depth, q = Q/b is the unit
3
by Equation (5) and those estimated by previous researchers
discharge, Q is the flow discharge, b is the gate width, g is the are shown in Figure 5

24
No Sill (Z=0.0)
Z=10 cm
20
Z=20 cm

16 Bijankhan et al. (2011)

yt/w

12
Submerged Flow

4 Free Flow

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
yo/w
Figure 3. Distinguishing condition curve.
4   F. S. F. ABDELHALEEM

(a)
0.85
No Sill (Z=0.0)
Z=10 cm
0.80 Z=20 cm
Toch (1955)

contraction coefficient,
Henderson (1970)
0.75 Webby (1999)
Tel (2000)
Shayan et al. (2014)
0.70

0.65

0.60
44 48 52 56 60 64 68
(degrees)

(b)
0.87

0.84

0.81
contraction coefficient,

0.78

0.75

0.72 No Sill (Z=0.0)

Z=10 cm
0.69 Z=20 cm
Toch (1955)
0.66 Henderson (1970)
Webby (1999)
0.63 Tel (2000)
Shayan et al. (2014)
0.60
3.5 6.5 9.5 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 24.5 27.5 30.5 33.5
yo/w

Figure 4.  Submerged radial gate contraction coefficient δ as (a) function of gate angle θ and (b) function of yo/w.

Table 2. Constant parameters of Equations (5) and (7).

yc ( y )b2 ( )c2
Z
Equation (5) = a2 o
(DRF)d2 (6)
Parameters λ a1 b1 c1  
w w w
Values 1.033 0.655 0.407 0.219   where a2, b2, c2, and d2 are constant parameters. Combining
Equation (7)
Equations (4) and (6) for the discharge coefficient, the follow-
Parameters λ a2 b2 c2 d2
Values 1.138 0.819 0.312 0.023 0.314 ing relationship is acquired:
� � �b � �c �1.5
2 2
yo Z d2
a2 w (DRF)
The data in Figure 5 agree with the formulas introduced by
w
(7)
Cd =
Bos (1989), (Clemmens et al. 2003, p. 681), and Shayan et al. −0.5
√
w 2(yo − yt )
(2014), especially for lower values of yo/w and show a small
discrepancy for higher values of yo/w. In contrast Equation Equation (7) can be applied to estimate Cd values for submerged
(5) shows a discrepancy with algorithms equations developed flow through radial gates with sill under gate (R2 = 0.96), respec-
by Buyalski (1983). tively. The mean absolute errors associated with Equation (7),
Although Equation (5) is deduced to compute the discharge was 0.89%.
coefficients for submerged flow through radial gates without Figure 6 shows that Equation (7) is consistent with most of
sill, it was applied to predict Cd values for cases of radial gate the experimental data presented by El-Ganainy et al. (1996),
with sills. The mean absolute errors associated with Equation but in contrast to equations proposed by Negm et al. (1998)
(5), was 9.81%. Largely discrepancies with the laboratory data and Sarhan (2013). This hence, confirms that the characteristics
is appeared for cases of smaller size gate openings than large of submerged flow through vertical gates with a sill under gate
openings. Therefore Equation (5) is not suitable to estimate are significantly different than the submerged flow through
the discharge coefficients for submerged flow through radial radial gates with a sill.
gates with sill. According to the current experiments, for relatively large
Likewise the previous analysis and applying the non-dimen- size gate openings, the sill height has a small effect on the dis-
sional method and ISS theory, the submerged flow through charge coefficient, but this effect is more significant for small
radial gates with a sill yields: gate openings. Moreover the discharge coefficient increases as
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING   5

0.90 the height of sill increases and the average discharge coefficients
were 0.79, 0.82, and 0.85 as the sill height increased from 0.0
0.85 to 10 cm and then to 20 cm, respectively.

0.80 3.3.  Submerged hydraulic jump characteristics

The visualized flow using a coloring injection revealed that, in
Cd-Estimated

0.75 case of the radial gate without sill, the flow downstream the gate
was highly turbulent and a recirculation zones were observed
0.70 near the water surface. The lengths of the recirculation zones
were smaller for low submergence ratios than those observed
Buyalski (1983) for high submergence. This reveals that as the submergences
0.65 Bos (1989)
Shayan et al.(2014)
increase the efflux under gate increases and more turbulence
Eq. (5) was generated. This is bound to create hydrodynamic instability
0.60 1:1 and vibrations, but this does not investigated throughout this
study. In case of the radial gate with a sill, besides the turbu-
0.55 lence for low submergences, the incoming flow after entering
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
the pool downstream the sill, was deflected on the way to the
Cd-Measured
water surface and increase the surface turbulences. For large
Figure 5.  Comparison between measured Cd values and those calculated by submergences, the flow jet immediately downstream the sill
Equation (5) and the previous formulas for cases of no sill. was deflected toward the water surface and then turned back
to the bed but at a longer distance downstream.

0.90 3.3.1.  Length of submerged jump

When the jump is submerged, jump characteristics are
function of submergence ratio, S. The relative length of sub-
0.85
merged jumps Lj/y1 as a function of the Froude number at
vena contracta F1 with different submergences is depicted in
0.80 Figure 7. According to this figure, the relative length of sub-
merged hydraulic jump increases as the submergence factor
Cd-Estimated

0.75 increases. For large submergences, the length of the submerged

hydraulic jump increases as the Froude number increases. For
0.70
low submergences, F1 has small effect on Lj/y1. This indicates
that the submergence ratio was the most influential factor on
the length of the submerged hydraulic jump. For the considered
0.65 submergence ratios, the jump length increases as the sill height
El-Ganainy et al. (1996)
Negm et al.(1998) decreases. In other words, sills under the submerged radial
0.60 Sarhan (2013) gate have negative impact on the length of submerged jumps.
Eq. (7)
1:1
Employing the experimental data collected in the current
0.55 study and applying the dimensional analysis and the regression
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 analysis tools, Lj/y1 and other independent parameters were
Cd-Measured correlated to develop the following equations:
Figure 6.  Comparison between measured Cd values and those calculated by
Equation (7) and previous formulas for cases of a sill under gate.
Lj ∕y1 = 13.19 F10.97 S0.47 (8)

120

100
S = 3.5

80 S =2.25
Lj /y1

60 S = 1.67

S = 0.97
40
No Sill (Z=0.0)
S = 0.56
Z= 10 cm
20
Z= 20 cm
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F1

Figure 7.  Relative jump lengths Lj/y1 versus Froude number F1 for different submergence factors and different sill heights.
6   F. S. F. ABDELHALEEM

(a) Equation (8) is valid for submerged radial gates without sill
120 and Equation (9) is proposed for submerged radial gates
with under gate sill. The predictive capability of Equations
100
(8) and (9) was remarkably high (R2 = 0.97 and 0.95, respec-
tively). The comparison between measured Lj/y1 values and
those predicted by Equations (8) and (9) is shown in Figure
80 8. The associated absolute errors varied from 0.01 to 4.11%,
respectively.
According to Figure 8, current experimental data were in a
Lj /y1

60 good agreement with those carried out by Rajaratnam (1965)

and Ali and Mohamed (2010) especially in case of considering
40 the same submergence factors.
Eq. (8)
Rajaratnam (1965) 3.3.2.  Energy dissipation
Ali and Mohamed (2010)
20 The pressure distributions within the jet were sufficiently
Zero error
hydrostatic; therefore the energy equation upstream and down-
± 10% errors
stream of the submerged hydraulic jump takes the following
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 form:
Lj /y1
U12 U2
(b) H = y3 + Z + 𝛼1 = yt + (𝛼2 + 𝜉) t (10)
120 2g 2g

where H is the energy head at upstream of the gate considered

100 the upstream bed of the flume without the sill as a datum,
y3 is the backup water depth, U1 is the average flow velocity
at the vena contracta, Ut is the average flow velocity at tail
80 section, yt is the tailwater depth, α is the velocity distribution
coefficient, and ξ is a coefficient of energy loss. The velocity
coefficient factor α, and the coefficient of energy loss ξ were
Lj /y 1

60
calculated as (Henderson (1966), p. 19 and Clemmens and
Wahl 2012). The relative energy dissipation is defined as the
40 ratio of the energy dissipated in the jump, ΔE to the energy of
Eq. (9) the supercritical flow, E1 (i.e. ΔE/E1). In Figure 9, the relative
Rajaratnam (1965) energy loss ΔE/E1 is plotted vs. F1 for considered sill heights
20 Ali and Mohamed (2010) and S values.
Zero error
± 10% errors
According to Figure 9 for all submergence ratios, the rela-
0 tive energy loss ΔE/E1 increases as the height of sill under gate
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 increases. For each height of sill, the relative energy loss ΔE/E1
Lj /y1 decreases as the submergence factor increases. At constant S,
ΔE/E1 increases as F1 increases.
Figure 8.  Comparison between Lj/y1 values and those computed by previous
formulas, (a) Equation (8) in case of no sill, (b) Equation (9) in case of under gate
Higher sill under gate gives the smallest backup water
with sill. depth and submerged jump length, but the highest energy loss.
Essentially, sill causes more energy loss and this is consistent
)−0.04 with the observations of El-Ganainy et al. (1996). The average
relative energy losses were 0.29, 0.33, and 0.41 for sill heights
(
Z
Lj ∕y1 = 11.83 F11.04 S 0.58
y1 (9) of 0.0, 10, and 20 cm, respectively.

0.6
S = 0.97
0.5 S = 0.56

0.4
E/E 1

0.3

0.2 No Sill (Z=0.0)

S = 3.5 Z= 10 cm
0.1 S = 1.67
S =2.25 Z= 20 cm
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F1

Figure 9. Relative energy loss ΔE/E1 versus F1 for different submergence factors and different sill heights.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING   7

15

S = 3.5
12

S =2.25
9
S = 1.67

y3 /w
6 S = 0.97 No Sill (Z=0.0)

S = 0.56 Z= 10 cm
3
Z= 20 cm

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
yo /w

Figure 10. Relative backup depth y3/w versus relative gate opening yo/w for different submergence factors and different sill heights.

(a) S values. This figure shows that for all tested sill heights, the
15 relative backup depth y3/w increases as S value increases. For
constant y1 and yt, the relative backup depth y3/w decreases as
the height of sill increases. This signifies that increasing the
12 sill height reduces the submergence of the incoming jet and
increases the energy loss. These two actions have opposite effect
on the value of discharge coefficient and this gives reason for
9 the slightly increase in the discharge coefficient values as sill
height increases.
y3 /w

The backup water depth is extremely difficult to measure

6 in the field while the flow is highly turbulent. In an attempt to
simplify the field measurements, the experimental data were
Eq. (11)
Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1969)
employed and applying the dimensional analysis tools to pro-
3 Ali et al. (2015) pose the following equations:
Zero error
± 10% errors y3 )−0.41 ( yo )−0.61 ( yt )1.31
(11)
(
= 0.55 w.Cd
0
w w w
0 3 6 9 12 15
y3 /w
y3 )0.05 ( yo )−0.20 ( yt )1.61 ( Z )−0.29
(12)
(
= 0.46 w.Cd
(b) w w w w
15
Equations (11) and (12) were valid for submerged radial
gates without and with under gate sill, respectively. The
12 associated errors for computing by Equations (11) and (12)
were consistent and did not exceed ±2%. Figure 11 shows a
comparison between data calculated by Equations (11), (12),
9
and the measured data. Good correlation between them was
achieved. The results of these equations fall within the ±10%
y3/w

error margins.
According to Figure 11, Equation (11) is in a very good
6
agreement with the experiments carried out by Ali et al.
(2015). Although the formula of Rajaratnam and Subramanya
Eq. (12)
Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1969) (1969) is developed for the submerged vertical sluice gates, the
3
Ali et al. (2015) present study applied this equation into its calculation pro-
Zero error cedure for submerged radial gates. The comparison between
± 10% errors
measured y3/w values and those calculated by Rajaratnam
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 and Subramanya (1969) is also depicted in Figure 11. A real
y3 /w surprise was the high accuracy that was revealed by equation
of Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1969) when estimating the
Figure 11. Comparison between observed y3/w values and those computed by backup water depth of the submerged radial gates particularly
previous formulas (a) Equation (11) in case of no sill and (b) Equation (12) in case
of under gate with sill.
for small gate openings.
On the contrary, the formulas of (Ali et al. 2015;
Rajaratnam and Subramanya 1969) for computing the backup
3.3.3.  Backup water depth depth showed a large discrepancy with the current experi-
In Figure 10, the relative backup depth y3/w is plotted vs. the ments for cases of sills under gate, especially for large gate
relative upstream water depth yo/w for selected sill heights and opening.
8   F. S. F. ABDELHALEEM

Z= 0.0 (no Sill) Z= 10 cm Z= 20 cm

(a)
15.6

10.4 0 1.0 2.0 m/s

1
y /y
U/U1
5.2

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.5
x/B
(b)
15.6

10.4
1
y /y

5.2

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.5
x/B
(c)
15.6

10.4
1
y /y

5.2

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.5
x/B

Figure 12. Non dimensional velocity profiles for different sill heights (a) F1 = 3.1, S = 1.67, (b) F1 = 2.31, S = 0.97 and (c) F1 = 1.63, S = 0.56.

3.4.  Velocity distributions
Non-dimensional velocity component profiles for the five
measured vertical sections located at distances 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
2.0, and 3.0 B, from the end edge of the sill are depicted in
Figure 12 for the tested sill heights and at different S values. For
different sill heights, typical velocity profile is almost attained
at distance 3B. Higher sills need longer distance to attain the
normal velocity distribution.
It was observed that the forward flow (positive or lower part
of the flow) increases as the Froude number F1 decreases and
this due to increasing the gate opening leads to increase the
thickness of the incoming jet. The length over which reverse
flow (negative upper part of the flow) is occurring downstream
the sill decreases as F1 and submergence ratios increase.
For all considered values of F1 and S, the forward flow and
the reverse flow increase as the sill height increases.
Then on dimensional velocity decay near the bed Ub/U1,
where Ub is the average bottom velocity is plotted vs. relative
distance from the edge of the sill x/y1. Typical cases are shown
in Figure 13.
According to Figure 13 the relative bottom velocity
decreases as x/y1 increases. At a certain distance downstream
the sill, the relative bottom velocity increases as S value
decreases. The velocities near the bed increase as the Froude
numbers decrease. In all cases, higher sill under gate generates
the largest values of the near bed velocity, which considered
as greatly harmful to the natural bed downstream the stilling
basin and this gives a good reason for the local scour that
was observed immediately downstream new Esna, and new
Naga Hammadi regulators in Egypt. Actually, no sill under
submerged radial gates (Z = 0.0) gives the best results for the
velocity near bed that reached the end of basin with the small-
est velocity.
4. Conclusions
Experimental results and statistical investigations of the
hydraulic characteristics of a submerged radial gate with a gate
sill led to the following conclusions:
• The height of sill under gate has a minor effect on the
contraction coefficient.
• The discharge coefficient slightly increases as the height
of sill increases.
• Higher sill under gate gives the smallest backup water
depth and submerged jump length, but the highest
energy loss.
• The forward flow and the reverse flow increase as the sill
height increases.
• Higher sill under gate generates the largest values of the
near bed velocity.
• Submerged radial gates with sill needs longer stilling
basin than those without sills.
• Results revealed in this study via the developed sta-
tistical equations predicting discharge coefficient,
backup water depth, the length of submerged hydrau-
lic jump, and the relative energy dissipating agree
well with those obtained by some of the previous
researchers.
• The proposed formulas are applicable within the entire
range of the experimental parameters.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING   9

(a) Lj   length of submerged hydraulic jump;

1.0
Z= 20 cm Q   flow discharge;
0.8 Z= 10 cm q     unit flow discharge;
No Sill (Z= 0.0) r    radius of the radial gate;
0.6
S    submergence factor;
Ub/U1

0.4 U1    average velocity at the vena contracta (at minimum jet

thickness);
0.2 Ub  average velocity near bed;
0.0 Ut   average flow velocity at tail section;
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 w     gate opening;
x/y1 x    longitudinal distance beginning from the sill toe;
(b) y    vertical distance measured from the flume bed
1.0
Z= 20 cm yc    critical water depth;
0.8 Z= 10 cm yo   upstream water depth;
No Sill (Z=0.0) y1   water depth at vena contracta (minimum jet thickness);
0.6 y3   backup water depth downstream of the gate;
Ub/U1

0.4 yt    tailwater depth;

Z     sill height,
0.2 θ      gate leaf angel;
0.0
δ    contraction coefficient;
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 α    velocity distribution coefficient; and
x/y1 ξ    coefficient of energy loss
(c)
1.0 Z= 20 cm
Z= 10 cm Acknowledgments
0.8
No Sill (Z= 0.0) The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Hydraulics
0.6 Research Institute staff, they facilitate the experimental setup. The
Ub /U1

high quality of this measured data allowed valuable relationships to be

0.4 deduced. The writer would like to acknowledge anonymous reviewers
for the very useful comments they made.
0.2

0.0 Disclosure statement

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
x/y1

Figure 13.  Relationship between Ub/U1 and x/y1 for different sill heights
(a) F1 = 3.1, S = 1.67, (b) F1 = 2.31, S = 0.97 and (c) F1 = 1.63, S = 0.56.
The present investigation verified the local scour that was
observed immediately downstream of the apron of new Esna,
and new Naga Hammadi regulators in Egypt. The current
experiments confirm that the submerged flow characteristics
through radial gates without a gate sill are better than those
with under gate sill.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
λ, a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, c2, d1  numerical constants;
a     gate trunnion-pin height;
b     radial gate width;
B     the channel width;
Cd    discharge coefficient;
DRF  a discharge reduction factor;
E1     energy of the supercritical flow;
ΔE    energy dissipated in the submerged jump;
F1    initial Froude number;
g     acceleration due to gravity;
H    energy head at upstream of the gate
References
Abdel-Aal, G.M. (2004). “Modeling of rectangular submerged hydraulic
jump.” Alexandria Eng. J., 43(6), 847–855.
Ali, A.M., and Mohamed, Y.A. (2010). “Effect of stilling basin shape on
the hydraulic characteristics of the flow downstream radial gates.”
Alexandria Eng. J., 49(4), 393–400.
Ali, A.M., Negm, A.M., El Gamal, M.H., Helwa, M.F., and Saad, M.B.
(2009). “Submerged flow characteristics in a pool-types stilling basin
with multi-end steps.” Thirteenth Int. Water Technol. Conf., IWTC 13
2009, Hurghada, Egypt.
Ali, A.M., Abdelhaleem, F.S., and Elsayed, S.M. (2015). “Laboratory
calibration of submerged radial gates.” 8th Int. Eng. Conf. (IEC8), Sharm
El-Sheikh, Egypt, 17–22.
Amin, A.M. (2013). “Bathymetric survey downstream of New Naga
Hammadi Barrage.” HRI Report, No.19/2013, Egypt.
Bhuiyan, F., Habibzadeh, A., Rajaratnam, N., and Zhu, D.Z. (2011).
“Reattached turbulent submerged offset jets on rough beds with shallow
tailwater.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 137(12), 1636–1648.
Bijankhan, M., Kouchakzadeh, S., and Bayat, E. (2011). “Distinguishing
condition curve for radial gates.” J. Flow Measur. Inst., 22(6), 500–506.
Bijankhan, M., Ferro, V., and Kouchakzadeh, S. (2013). “New stage-
discharge relationships for radial gates.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 139(5),
378–387.
Bos, M.G. (1989). Discharge measurement structures, ILRI, Wageningen.
Buyalski, C.P. (1983). “Discharge algorithms for canal radial gates.”
REC-ERC-83-9, Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, CO.
Chow, V. (1959). Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., and Replogle, J.A. (2003). “Calibration of
submerged radial gates.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129(9), 680–687.
10   F. S. F. ABDELHALEEM
Clemmens, A.J., and Wahl, T.L. (2012). “Computational procedures used
for radial gate calibration in wingate.” World Environ. Water Resour.
Cong., ASCE, 2106–2115.
El-Ganainy, M., Abourehim, M.A., and El-Fitiany, F. (1996). “Radial gates
with sill for irrigation structures.” Alexandria Eng. J., 35(6), C303–C309.
Elsaeed, G.H., Ali, A.M., Abdelmageed N.B., and Ibrahim, A.M. (2016).
“Effect of end step shape in the performance of stilling basins
downstream radial gates.” J. Sci. Res. Rep., 9(1), 1–9.
Henderson, F.M. (1966). Open channel flow, The Macmillan Company,
New York, NY.
Ibrahim, A.A. (2000). “Analysis and formulation of supercritical
submerged flow below gate in radial basin with lateral sill.” Eng. Res.
J., 68, 117–130.
Ma, F., Hou, Y., and Prinos, P. (2001). “Numerical calculation of submerged
hydraulic jumps.” J. Hydraul. Res., 39(5), 493–503.
McCorquodale, J.A., and Khalifa, A.M. (1980). “Submerged radial
hydraulic jump.” Hydraul. Div., ASCE, 106(3), 355–367.
Mohamed, Y.A., Saleh, Y.K., and Ali, A.M. (2015). “Studying the effect of
different configuration of sill over stilling basin on flow characteristics
behind radial gate, (case study Naga Hammadi regulator).” JES, Assiut
Univ., Fac. Eng., 43(3), 311–329.
Narasimhan, S., and Bhargara, P.. (1976). “Pressure fluctuations in
submerged jump.” J. Hydraul. Div., ASCE, 102(3), 339–350.
Negm, A.M., Abdelateef, M., and Owais, T.M. (1993a). “Effect of under-
gate sill crest shapes on the supercritical free flow characteristics.” Ain
Shams Univ., Eng. Bull., 28(4), 175–186.
Negm, A.M., Alhamid, A.A., and El-Saiad, A.A. (1998). “Submerged flow
below sluice gate with sill.” Adv. Hydrosci. Eng. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
on Hydro-Sci. Eng., ICHE, Brandenburg University of Technology,
Cottbus, Berlin, Germany.
Peterka, A.J. (1984). “Hydraulic design of stilling basins and energy
dissipators.” 8th Ed. Eng. Monograph No. 25, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, CO.
Rajaratnam, N. (1965). “Submerged hydraulic jump.” J. Hydraul. Div.,
91(4), 71–96.
Rajaratnam, N. (1967). “Hydraulic jumps.” Adv. Hydrosci., Acad. Press,
NY, 4, 197–280.
Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K. (1969). “Practical problems of sluice
gate flow.” Water, Power, 21, 112–115.
Saad, N.Y. (2011). “Flow under a submerged gate with a circular- crested
sill.” Nile Basin Water Sci. & Eng. J., 4(2),161–169.
Salem, M.N. (1990). “Study of the hydraulic properties of segmental gates
of low head irrigation structures.” M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Eng., Ain
Shams Univ., Cairo.
Sarhan, A.S. (2013). “Analysis of submerged flow under a gate with a
prismatic sill.” J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 8(10), 849–856.
Sehgal, C.K. (1996). “Design guidelines for spillway gates.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 122(3), 155–165. March 1997.
Shayan, H.K., Farhoudi, J., and Oshan, R. (2014). “Estimation of flow
discharge under the sluice and radial gates based on contraction
coefficient.” IJST, Trans. Civ. Eng., 38(C2), 449–463.
Tel, J. (2000). “Discharge relations for radial gates.” M.Sc. thesis, Delft
Technical Univ., Delft.
Toch, A. (1955). “Discharge characteristics of Tainter gates.” Trans. Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 120, 290–300.
Webby, M.G. (1999). “Discussion: irrotational flow and real fluid effects
under planar sluice gates.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125(2), 210–212.