See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233380570

Analysis and Formulation of Flow Through Combined V-Notch-Gate-Device

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Research · November 2002

DOI: 10.1080/00221680209499922

CITATIONS READS

5 702

1 author:

Abdelazim M Negm
Zagazig University
469 PUBLICATIONS   1,592 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waste Management in MENA Regions, edited by Abdelazim Negm and Noama Shareef View project

Water Resources Management in Balkan Countries, edited by Abdelazim M. Negm, Gheorghe Romanescu and Martina Zelenakova View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelazim M Negm on 12 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Discussion

Analysis and formulation of flow through combined v-notch-gate-device

by Abdelaziz A. Alhamid, Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 37, No.5, pp.697-705.

Discusser
Abdel-Azim M. Negm, Associate Professor, Water & Water Structures Engg. Dept., Faculty of Engg., Zagazig University, Egypt.

Objectives of the discussion

The main objectives of the present discussion are:
1- to update the review of literature that was presented by the Author.
2- to show the merits and demerits of the Author’s Eq. (5) compared to the Discusser’s experimental data for free and submerged flow.
3- to present the Discusser’s experimental results concerning the flow through combined V-notch-gate device in case of free and
submerged flow.

1. Updating the review of literature  1 gate flow alone

The Author has mentioned that ‘combined devices introduced
first by Ahmed (1985)’. The Discusser does not know who first
introduced the combined devices but he knows that they date back
to 1938 at least when Escade (1938) investigated the flow through
combined devices (over weirs and below gates) both theoretically
and experimentally as reported by Charles (1956) and Chow
(1959). Muller (1944) studied the scour due to combined flow and
derived a formula for estimating the scour depth downstream the
combined devices due to different ratios of overflow discharge to
underflow discharge. Hydrodynamic problems due to combined
devices were investigated and discussed by many researchers,
see. e.g. Naudasher (1991) to find a list of studies covering the
same. The flow through combined devices may be free when both
the flow over weir and below the gate are free and it is termed
submerged when the flow below the gate is submerged (and the
flow over the weir may or may not be submerged). For free flow,
the combined discharge can be obtained by adding the overflow
to the underflow, Chow (1959). Negm (1996) developed an accu-
rate discharge equation for combined suppressed weir and gate
device based on the generalized discharge equations developed by
Swamee (1988, 1992). Negm equation takes the following form:
− 0.1035
 h 
− 10
 Zv − Zg Zg  
− 15
αg =  0 weir flow alone
 
 1.003 combined flow
Predictions due to Eq. (6) are presented versus the actual data in
Fig. (10). Eq. (6) predicts the combined flow within ±3% for the
majority of the measured data. The experimental data presented
in Fig. (10) are within the following limitations: 1.67 (Zv-
Z g )/Z g 18, 5.08 b/Z g 30.5, 0.053 Z g /Z v 0.375 and
0.303 Zv/b 0.787. Later on, Negm (1997) re-analyzed the same
data of Fig. (10) and introduced a set of regression equations for
the combined flow through the device. Characteristics of free
flow through combined devices with rectangular openings of un-
equal contractions have been investigated by Negm (1995) and
with equal contractions by Negm et al. (2002). Characteristics of
submerged flow for rectangular openings have been presented
and discussed by Negm (2000). If one of the openings is triangu-
lar, a series of studies are available in the literature. For V-notch-
gate device with free flow, see El-Saiad et al. (1995), Alhamid et
al. (1997), for submerged flow, see Negm et al. (1997a) and for
both free and submerged flow, Negm et al. (1997b). For rectangu-
lar notch-inverted V-notch gate, one may refer to Negm et al.
30 Zv-Zg/Zg b/Zg
1.67 5.08

Q c = 0.9994 g α w  0.576 + 0.0707  +  1+ +   b h 1.5

25
2.00 6.10
 Z + h   h h  
 g
 (6) 2.50 7.63
− 0.072
 16 Z g  3.00 5.08
Measured Qc, l/s

+ 0.864 g α g 1+  bZ g H 3.00 6.10

 H − Zg  20
3.60 6.10
3.75 7.63

15 4.50 7.63
where αw and αg are interaction factors, (other notations being as 5.00 10.17
defined by the Author). These factors were introduced to account 6.00 10.17

for the interaction of the under- and overflow. They have the fol- 10 5.00 8.47
3.00 9.16
lowing form: 5.00 15.25
5 9.00 15.25
7.50 15.25
 1 weir flow alone 5 10 15 20 25 30 Line of Equality

αw =  0 gate flow alone

Predictedl Qc, l/s
  Fig. 10 Prediction of Eq. (6) versus actual measured combined dis-
 1.002 combined flow charges

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6 755

(1994), El-Saiad et al. (1995), Alhamid et al. (1996), Negm et al. 25 Model

(1997a). The most important study that are related to Author’s S1

paper is Negm et al. (1997b) where it was proved that an average 20

S2
S3 Author data
combined coefficient of discharge for both weir and gate is not

Measured Qc, l/s

S4
applicable and hence set of regression equations were developed S5
15
as follows: S1
S2 Discusser data
S3
1- For free flow 10
S4
1.5 1.5
Qc  H +h  h S5

= −1.5575 + 0.1327   + 0.1385   5

Line of Equality
2gZ g2.5  Zg   Zg 
(7) 5 10 15 20 25
 b Predicted Qc , l/s
+1.0595   + 0.4108θ
 Zg  Fig. 11 Comparison between Eq. (9) (solid symbols) and Eq. (5) (open
symbols) for submerged flow bsed on Author’s data (series S1
to S5)
2- For submerged flow:
1.5 1.5 effects of Zg/Zv when Zv is variable, to include more angles of the
Qc  H +h  h
= +0.3002+ 0.2205  − 0.0436   V-notch and to include the effect of submergence. Before going

2gZ g2.5  Zg   Zg  deep into the discussion, the Discusser thought that the following
(8)
 b h  corrections should be made to the materials presented in the Au-
+0.3843   + 0.1802θ − 0.6748  d  thor’s paper.
 Zg   Zg 
– First, the used flume is 30.5 cm wide but the Author used 30
The coefficient of determination of eq.(7) is 0.99 with standard cm in the calculations of b/B and Zv/B. Therefore, the use of
error of estimate (SEE) of 0.167 while for eq.(8) is 0.987 with the actual values of b/B and Zv/B in Eq. (5) will produce pre-
SEE of 0.0756. dictions which are slightly higher or lower than the actual ones.
The legend of any figure containing b/B or Zv/B should be
3- For Both Free and Submerged Flow changed to match the exact values of the parameters. A list of
1.5 1.5 such changes is provided in Table (2). Fortunately, the differ-
Qc  H +h  h
= −1.3554 + 0.1378 + 0.1085   ences are small and will not affect greatly the accuracy of

2gZ g2.5  Zg   Zg  Eq. (5).
(9)
 b h  – Second, Eq. (5) contains Zv/Zg and it should be Zg/Zv as de-
+1.0512   + 0.2752θ − 0.4694  d  fined on the third line after the equation, otherwise Eq. (5)
 g
Z  Zg 
gives illegal values of CVG.
The comparison between the measured data and the predicted
ones using Eq. (9) is shown in Fig.(11). Eq. (9) has an R2 of 0.989 Table 2 Wrong and Corrected values of b/B and Zv/B of table (1)
and SEE of 0.1567.
Wrong values Correct value
Model b(cm) Zg(cm) Zv(cm) θ Zg/Zv b/B Zv/B b/B Zv/B
The performance of Eq. (9) is compared to the performance of M1 20.000 5.000 17.000 90.000 0.294 0.667 0.567 0.656 0.557
Eq. (5) for submerged flow as shown in Fig. (11). Fig. (11) indi- M2 15.000 5.000 17.200 90.000 0.291 0.500 0.573 0.492 0.564
cated that Eq. (5) provides predictions which are much better than M3 15.000 10.00 17.000 90.000 0.588 0.500 0.567 0.492 0.557
Eq. (9) for submerged flow. However, Eq. (8) is better than Eq. M4 20.000 8.000 16.000 90.000 0.500 0.667 0.533 0.656 0.525
M5 15.000 8.000 17.000 90.000 0.471 0.500 0.567 0.492 0.557
(9) as it has SEE of 0.0756 that much smaller than that of Eq. (9).
M6 15.000 6.000 17.100 90.000 0.351 0.500 0.570 0.492 0.561
Negm et al. (1997b) stated that ‘Eq. (9) needs generalization by M7 20.000 8.000 17.000 90.000 0.471 0.667 0.567 0.656 0.557
using more data covering wider ranges of the flow and geometric M8 15.000 5.000 17.000 60.000 0.294 0.500 0.567 0.492 0.557
parameters for both free and submerged’. Hence the Author’s M9 20.000 8.000 17.300 45.000 0.462 0.667 0.577 0.656 0.567
M10 20.000 5.000 17.300 45.000 0.289 0.667 0.577 0.656 0.567
work is important from this point of view.
S1 20.000 8.000 19.600 45.000 0.408 0.667 0.653 0.656 0.643
S2,A10 15.000 5.000 20.000 60.000 0.250 0.500 0.667 0.492 0.656
S3,A6 20.000 8.000 20.000 90.000 0.400 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
2. Merits and demerits of Eq.(5) S4 20.000 8.000 20.000 112.000 0.400 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
S5 20.000 8.000 17.500 124.000 0.457 0.667 0.583 0.656 0.574
2.1 General Comments for the Benefits of the Reader A1 10.000 10.00 20.000 90.000 0.500 0.333 0.667 0.328 0.656
A2 15.000 10.00 20.000 90.000 0.500 0.500 0.667 0.492 0.656
The Author’s Eq. (5) is a modified version of Alhamid et al. A3 15.000 5.000 20.000 90.000 0.250 0.500 0.667 0.492 0.656
(1997) Eq. (1). Eq. (1) has the following limitations: A4 20.000 5.500 20.000 90.000 0.275 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
A5 5.000 10.000 20.000 90.000 0.500 0.167 0.667 0.164 0.656
0.30 ∆Z/H 0.70, 0.167 b/B 0.5, 30° θ 90°, 0.25 Zg/Zv 0.5 and
A7 20.000 8.000 20.000 60.000 0.400 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
Zv<H. The experimental data used to derive Eq. (1) has a fixed A8 20.000 8.000 20.000 45.000 0.400 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
Zv. Therefore, it is a good thinking from the Author to include the

756 JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6

A9 20.000 8.000 20.000 30.000 0.400 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656 agreement is observed except in few cases. Predictions of Eq. (5)
A11 20.000 10.00 20.000 90.000 0.500 0.667 0.667 0.656 0.656
is presented versus the experimental results of the 18 tested mod-
els in Fig. (14). Fair agreement is obtained. The percentage error
– Third, Eq. (2) contains 14 variables, [q should be replaced by for these sets of data are presented in Fig. (15) versus measured
g in Eq. (2)] the effect of two of them are neglected (viscosity CVG. Generally speaking, from Fig. (12) to (15), the performance
and surface tension), the remaining variables are then 12. If of Eq. (5) for free flow is acceptable within about ±7% error
any method of the dimensional analysis techniques is utilized, based on the Discusser’s data that cover wider range compared to
9 dimensionless groups should be obtained. But the Author the Author’s data.
presented 10 dimensionless groups in both Eq.’s (3 and 4). He
Table 3 Dimensions and ranges of the parameters tested by the
used another dimensionless parameter in Fig. (7), which is not Discusser
included in either Eq. (3) or (4), i.e. gate Froude number. The
Discusser proposed that the parameter h/B can be dropped Model b (m) b/Zg b/B Zg/Zv Zv/B θ ∆Z/Zg
from Eq. (4) and the parameter Vc=Qc/bZg can be included in T1-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.444 0.590 90.000 1.250
Eq. (2). If a combined flow velocity is used as Vc=Qc/bZg, a T2-F 0.160 1.778 0.525 0.506 0.584 90.000 0.978
more proper definition of gate Froude number may be T3-F 0.150 1.829 0.492 0.482 0.557 60.000 1.073
Qc / bZ g 2 gZ g . T4-F 0.150 1.485 0.492 0.594 0.557 60.000 0.683
– Fourth, in case of submerged flow the depth just downstream T5-F 0.150 2.500 0.492 0.353 0.557 60.000 1.833
the gate (hd) is not stable and is always less than the tailwater T6-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.462 0.567 43.000 1.163
depth (ht) measured away from the device that is mostly stable. T7-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.462 0.567 124.000 1.163
Thus the role of submergence can be discussed in terms of T8-F 0.200 4.000 0.656 0.289 0.567 43.000 2.460
tailwater depth ratio (ht/Zg) and not the water depth hd. The T9-F 0.150 2.500 0.492 0.351 0.561 90.000 1.850
Author defined hd on Fig. (2) as a tailwater depth and it should T10-F 0.100 1.000 0.328 0.588 0.557 90.000 0.700
be the depth just downstream the gate. Eq. (5) gives significant T11-F 0.150 3.000 0.492 0.250 0.656 60.000 3.000
error if ht is used instead of hd and it gives better prediction T12-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.400 0.656 60.000 1.500
within the specified range of errors or slightly higher when hd T13-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.400 0.656 45.000 1.500
is used. This means that hd should be the depth of water mea- T14-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.400 0.656 112.000 1.500
sured just downstream the gate and it is defined wrongly on T15-F 0.200 2.500 0.656 0.400 0.656 30.000 1.500
Fig. (2) to replace ht. The use of ht in Eq. (5) is more logic as T16-F 0.150 3.000 0.492 0.294 0.557 60.000 2.400
it is more stable than hd. Hence, Eq. (5) for submerged flow T17-F 0.100 2.000 0.328 0.294 0.557 90.000 2.400
has a limited use regarding the submergence effect (ht/d), how- T18-F 0.150 3.000 0.492 0.294 0.557 90.000 2.400
ever, it is very useful if the depth just downstream the gate can
be measured accurately. For all the next sections, hd and ht are
2.3 Performance of Eq. (5) for Submerged Flow
defined as depths of water measured just downstream and away
from the device respectively. Fig. (16) shows the results of testing more than 30 models (5 of
– Fifth, the limitations of Eq. (5) should be specified as it is de- them for the Author) in case of submerged flow below the gate
rived from experimental data. These limitations are as follows: while the flow over the V-notch weir is free. Table (4) shows the
for free flow h d <Z g , 30° θ 124°, 0.164 b/B 0.656, dimensions and the ranges of the parameter covered by the
0.25 Zg/Zv 0.588, 0.525 Zv/B 0.656 and 0.5 b/Zg 4.0. For Discusser’s experimental program as well as those of the Author.
submerged flow a small range is tested and the limitations are Values of CVG from Eq. (5) are compared with the experimentally
clear in table 2 against each V-notch angle as only one set of measured ones for 8 models (T17-S, T18-S, T27-S, T32-S, T31-
data is collected for each V-notch angle. These limitations are: S) in Fig. (17). Values of CVG from Eq. (5) is computed two
hd>Zg, 45° θ 124°, 0.492 b/B 0.656, 0.25 Zg/Zv 0.457, times, first in terms of hd (dashed lines) and second in terms of ht
0.574 Zv/B 0.643 and 2.5 b/Zg 3.0. (solid line). Mostly, the results of Eq. (5) are acceptable with hd
– Finally, the title of the x-axis of Fig. (6) was missing and it is defined as the water depth just downstream the gate and can not
mostly Zg/H. be accepted if hd is considered as the tailwater depth measured
away from the gate as defined in Fig.(2). It is clear that Eq. (5)
fits well when hd is used and hence does not reflect the effect of
2.2 Performance of Eq. (5) for Free Flow
submergence as it is defined by ht/Zg. Eq. (5) is thus not usable
The experimental data were collected using the same flume that when one needs to study the sensitivity of CVG with respect to the
used by the Author. The models material, model fixation and ex- submergence ratio. Also, if ht is used in Eq. (5), it sometimes fails
perimental arrangement are all similar. Table (3) shows the di- to predict CVG (regardless of accuracy) for low upstream water
mensions of the models tested by the Discusser. depth H as in some cases the value of 1.25ht exceeds the value of
The experimental results of all data sets due to the Discusser for H resulting in a negative value with a power less than 1.0.
free flow are presented in Fig. (12). Results of six sets of data for Fig. (18) presents the percentage error versus CVG for few models
models T1-F, T3-F, T6-F, T7-F, T14-F and T15-F are compared (T7-S, T8-S, T17-S, T18-S, T27-S, T32-S, T31-S) when hd is
to the prediction of Eq. (5) as shown in Fig. (13). General good used in Eq. (5) while Fig. (19) presents the same when ht is used.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6 757

 1.20
Model
1.20
T1-F
T2-F
T3-F 1.00

Measured CVG
T4-F
1.00
T5-F
T6-F
T7-F 0.80
CVG

T8-F
0.80
T9-F
T10-F
0.60
T11-F
T12-F
0.60
T13-F
T14-F 0.40
T15-F

0.40
T16-F 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
T17-F Predicted CVG
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 T18-F
Fig. 14 Measured CVG versus predicted using Eq.(5), notations as in
Zg/H
Fig.(12)
Fig. 12 Variation of CVG with Zg/H for tested models by the Discusser
S4 0.200 0.400 2.500 0.656 0.656 1.500 112
Also, Fig. (20a) shows the prediction of Eq. (5) versus the actual S5 0.200 0.457 2.500 0.656 0.574 1.188 124
values of CVG for all model of table (4) based on hd while T6-S 0.200 0.286 2.500 0.656 0.918 2.500 150 T#-S series
Fig. (20b) presents the same based on ht for models from T7-S to T7-S 0.200 0.400 2.500 0.656 0.656 1.500 90 2.50 are due to
T8-S 0.200 0.400 2.500 0.656 0.656 1.500 45 2.50 the Discusser
T32-S as no ht is available for at the Discusser’s hand models T9-S 0.200 0.500 2.000 0.656 0.656 1.000 90 2.00
from S1 to S5 and T6-S. The percentage error of using Eq. (5) T10-S 0.100 0.500 1.000 0.328 0.656 1.000 90 2.00
based on hd due to all models of table (4) is shown in Fig. (21). It T11-S 0.150 0.500 1.500 0.492 0.656 1.000 90 2.00
T12-S 0.150 0.482 1.829 0.492 0.557 1.073 60 2.32
should be mentioned that Eq. (5) produces reasonable prediction T13-S 0.150 0.594 1.485 0.492 0.557 0.683 60 1.88
for the data range covered by the Author and underestimates or T14-S 0.150 0.294 3.000 0.492 0.557 2.400 60 3.0, 3.5
overestimates CVG values for ranges uncovered by the Author. T15-S 0.150 0.353 2.500 0.492 0.557 1.833 60 3.00
T16-S 0.200 0.462 2.500 0.656 0.567 1.163 43 2.25, 2.38, 2.5
The percentage error of Eq. (5) for the range uncovered by the
T17-S 0.200 0.289 4.000 0.656 0.567 2.460 43 3.2, 3.6
Author may reach upto more than ±30% when Eq. (5) is applied T18-S 0.200 0.294 4.000 0.656 0.557 2.400 91 3.60
with hd and more than this if ht is used. Fortunately, the Author T19-S 0.150 0.291 3.000 0.492 0.564 2.440 90 3.0, 3.5
T20-S 0.150 0.588 1.500 0.492 0.557 0.700 90 1.90
mentioned that ‘an extension of the developed equation will be
T21-S 0.200 0.471 2.500 0.656 0.557 1.125 91 2.25, 2.50
tried to cover a wide range of application.’ T22-S 0.200 0.250 4.000 0.656 0.656 3.000 90 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
T23-S 0.050 0.500 0.500 0.164 0.656 1.000 90 2.00
Table 4 dimensions of the models tested by the Discusser for V-notch- T24-S 0.200 0.444 2.500 0.656 0.590 1.250 90 2.80
T25-S 0.150 0.471 1.875 0.492 0.557 1.125 90 2.25
Gate device
T26-S 0.150 0.351 2.500 0.492 0.561 1.850 90 3.00
Model b Zg/Zv b/Zg b/B Zv/B ∆Z/Zg θ S=ht/Zg Remarks
T27-S 0.160 0.506 1.778 0.525 0.584 0.978 90 2.00
S1 0.200 0.408 2.500 0.656 0.643 1.450 45 S series
T28-S 0.100 0.588 1.000 0.328 0.557 0.700 90 1.8, 2.0
S2 0.150 0.250 3.000 0.492 0.656 3.000 60 are due to
T29-S 0.100 0.294 2.000 0.328 0.557 2.400 90 3.0, 3.5
S3 0.200 0.400 2.500 0.656 0.656 1.500 90 the Author
T30-S 0.150 0.294 3.000 0.492 0.557 2.400 90 3.0, 3.5
T31-S 0.150 0.250 3.000 0.492 0.656 3.000 60 2.8,3.2,3.6
0.80 T32-S 0.200 0.400 2.500 0.656 0.656 1.500 112 2.50
0.80 0.70
Exp. data Exp. data Exp. data
Eq.(5) Eq.(5)
Eq.(5)

0.70 0.65
2.4 Effect of Submergence
CVG
CVG

CVG

0.70
0.60 0.60
Fig. (22) is a reproduction of Fig. (7) to show the role of hd/Zg on
(a)
0.60 0.50
(b)
0.55
(c) CVG in terms of the gate Froude number (FG) according to the
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
definition introduced by Discusser (W-FG) compared to that of
Zg/H Zg/H Zg/H the Author (A-FG). It is clear that W-FG is smaller than A-FG
0.70 Exp. data
Eq.(5)
0.60
Exp. data
0.70 and according to W-FG the flow may be subcritical and at the
Exp. data
Eq.(5)
Eq.(5) same time may be supercritical according to the A-FG which is
CVG

not possible and this invalidate the use of FG as defined by both

CVG
CVG

0.60 0.65
0.55
the Author and the Discusser. Both definitions do not reflect the
(d) (f)
actual state or regime of flow below the gate. For this reason it is
0.50 (e)
0.50 0.60 better to discuss the role of submergence in terms of ht/Zg as in
0.30 0.40 0.50
Zg/H 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 the next paragraph. Another criterion may be looked for as gate
Zg/H Zg/H

Fig. 13 Experimental results versus Eq.(5) for models (a) T1-F; (b) T3- Froude number based on gate flow only. This concept is possible
F; (c) T6-F; (d) T7-F; (e) T15-F; and (f) T‘4-F. if an equation is developed like Eq. (6) to compute the combined

758 JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6

 10.00 0.80
T31-S (Negm et al 1997)

CVG
0.60 Eq.(5) with hd

5.00 Eq.(5) with ht

0.40
% Error

0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22

0.00 Zg/H
0.60
T32-S (Negm et al. 1997)

CVG
-5.00 0.40 Eq.(5) with hd
Eq.(5) with ht
0.20
-10.00 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34
Zg/H
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.80
T17-S
CVG 0.60

CVG
Eq.(5) with hd
Fig. 15 Variation of % error in CVG of Eq.(5), notations as in Fig.(12) 0.40 Eq.(5) with ht
0.20

discharge, the gate discharge and the weir discharge. This is what 0.15 0.20 0.25
Zg/H
the Discusser is trying to do at the time being for different shapes 1.00
T18-S
of combined devices. 0.80

CVG
0.60 Eq.(5) with hd
The typical variations of CVG with Zg/H for different S (=ht/Zg of
0.40 Eq.(5) with ht
2.25, 2.38, and 2.50) are shown in Fig. (23a) (Model T16-S, 0.20
θ=43°). Also, Fig.(23b) and Fig.(23c) are presented for models
0.15 0.20 0.25
T31-S (θ=60°, S=2.8, 3.2 and 3.6) and T22-S (θ=90°, S=3, 3.5 Zg/H
0.80
T27-S
0.60
CVG

1.40 Model Eq.(5) with hd

0.40 Eq.(5) with ht
S1
S2 0.20
S3
0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40
S4 Zg/H
1.20 S5 Fig. 17 Comparison between measured CVG and predicted ones using
T6-S
Eq.(5) based on hd (dashed lines) and ht (solid lines)
T7-S
T8-S
T9-S
and 4.0). The parameters θ, b/Zg, (Zv-Zg)/Zg are kept constant as
1.00 T10-S
T11-s shown in Table (4) to eliminate their effects and clarify the effect
T12-S of S on the variations of CVG with Zg/H. It is observed that for the
T13-S same CVG the ratio Zg/H decreases by increasing of the tail water
T14-s
depth for constant Zg or by increasing the submergence ratio, S.
CVG

T15-S
0.80 This is due to as the submergence increases a backwater effect
T16-s
T17-S
occurred until stability has attained. This backwater effect reduces
T18-S the velocity of the flow through the gate. In turn, this reduction of
T19-S the velocity will result in a corresponding reduction in the kinetic
0.60
T20-S energy which is transformed into a potential energy. As a result,
T21-s
the upstream head increases simultaneously during the transfor-
T22-s
T23-S
T24-S 20 Model
T25-s
0.40 15 T7-S
T26-s T8-S
10
% Error

T27-S T14-s
T28-S 5 T17-S
T29-S 0 T18-S
T30-S T27-S
0.20 -5
T31-S
T31-S
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 T32-S -10
T32-S
Zg/H
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Fig. 16 Experimental results for all tested models by the Author (S-se- CVG
ries) and the writer (T-series) for submerged flow Fig. 18 Percentage error due to using hd in Eq. (5) for few data sets

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6 759

 35 Model 40
30 T7-S
30
25 T8-S
20
% Error

T14-s
20

% Error
15
T17-S 10
T18-S
10 T27-S
0
5 T31-S -10
0 T32-S -20
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 -30
CVG
Fig. 19 Percentage error due to using ht in Eq. (5) for few data sets
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
CVG
mation of the kinetic energy to potential energy. On the other Fig. 21 % Error in predicting CVG using Eq.(5) based on hd for all model
hand, at particular Zg/H, it is observed from Fig. (23) that CVG is of Fig.(16)
higher for the lower submergence ratio and vice versa. For low
submergence, the head just downstream the gate decreases result-
ing in high differential head and hence more discharge is allowed
2.6 Effect of b/Zg, ∆Z/Zg and b/B at Fixed S
to pass below the gate for the same upstream water depth.
The effect of b/Zg on the variation of CVG with Zg/H is clear as in
Fig.(25). A typical case for S=2.0, θ=90° and ∆Z/Zg=1.0 is pre-
2.5 Effect of V-notch Angle at Fixed Submergence
sented for different values of b/Zg of 1.0 (T10-S), 1.5 (T11-S) and
Fig. (24) presents the typical variation of CVG with Zg/H for three 2.0 (T9-S). It is observed that for all values of b/Zg , a single line
different apex angles of the triangular weir, θ=112°, 90° and 45° is possible which indicates the insignificant effect of b/Zg on CVG.
at particular S of 2.5. The other geometric parameters b/Zg and However, the higher the b/Zg value, the higher the CVG at particu-
∆Z/Zg are kept constant to eliminate their effects. From this fig- lar Zg/H. This is a matter of the fact that the capacity of the sluice
ure, one can conclude that the wider the apex angle, the higher the gate increases as its length becomes wider and hence the dis-
discharge coefficient CVG and the narrower the angle, the lower charge coefficient increases.
the CVG. Also, for the closer angles, the CVG values are not vari-
ant so much. This is due to the nearer flow area of the triangular The analysis of all data leads to the fact that as ∆Z/Zg increases,
weirs when the apex angles are closer as observed for the cases CVG is decreased. However, for particular ∆Z and ∆Z/Zg, CVG is
of θ=112° and θ=90°. At particular Zg/H it is clear that the differ- decreasing as Zg increases and consequently the discharge in-
ence is the CVG values between the cases of θ=45° and θ=90° or creases keeping the other parameters constant. Also, results indi-
112° is high compared to the difference between those of θ=90° cated that CVG increases as b/B increases, i.e., as the width of the
and 112°. Moreover, at smaller heads over the weir, the wetted gate, b, increases, the capacity of the structure to carry more wa-
area becomes almost the same. This is mainly because of the Ma- ter is increased. These and other observations can be found in
jority of the flow passes through the gate which explains why all Negm et al. (1994) and Alhamid et al. (1997) for free flow and in
the data originate from a common point at lower heads or higher Negm et al. (1997) for submerged flow.
Zg/H. Furthermore, if the head over the weir increases, the contri-
bution of the weir to the total combined flow increases and the
2.7 Prediction of Combined Discharge
data for the different angles deviate from each other reflecting the
relative contribution of the weir flow to the total flow.
0.55
W-FG A-FG
1.500
1.500 =hd/Zg
1.40 1.40 0.50 1.938
1.938
0.944 1.669
2.450
2.450 1.048 1.852
1.20 2.288
2.278
1.513
1.086 1.921
Measured CVG

CVG
Measured CVG

1.913

1.00 1.00 0.45 2.515

2.238
1.675
1.164 2.058
1.216 2.149
2.194
2.000
1.255 2.218
0.80 2.350
0.40 1.293 2.286
0.60 0.60 2.263
2.000
Equal FG
Equal Averaged hd/Zg
0.40 0.35
0.20 0.20
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
0.20 0.60 1.00 1.40 0.20 0.60 1.00 1.40 (Zv-Zg)/H
Predicted CVG Predicted CVG Fig. 22 Author’s Fig.(7) in terms of writer’s FG and Author’s FG to
Fig. 20 Measured versus predicted using Eq.(5) based (a) hd and (b) ht show the role of relative downstream water depth (hd/Zg) on
for submerged flow, notations as in Fig.(16) CVG for model S3

760 JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6

 0.6 S 0.70 ht/Zg 1.10 average F=0.973
2.25 2.8 (a)
2.38
3.2
2.50 0.60 1.00

F
3.6

CVG
CVG

Fitting
Fitting
0.5
0.50
0.90
0.4 0.40
2 3 4 5 6 7
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.16 0.20 0.24 H/Zg
Zg/H Zg/H 1.20 Average F=1.046
(b)
0.80 1.00

F
S

3.0
3.5
4.0
0.80
CVG

Fitting

0.60
2 3 4 5 6 7
H/Zg
0.40 Fig. 26 Variations of F with H/Zg for (a) free flow and (b) for sub-
0.16 0.18 0.20 merged flow
Zg/H
Fig. 23 Effect of submergence S=ht/Zg, on (a) CVG for T16-S, (b) CVG weir and rectangular gate, the combined discharge is given by:
for T31-S and (c) CVG for T22-S.

0.60 8 
theta Qp = F  Cdw 2 ghe2.5 + Cdg Z g b 2 gH  (10)
45  15 
0.55 90
112 where he is the effective head on the weir, Cdw is the discharge
CVG

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.26 0.30
Zg/H
Fig. 24 Effect of V-notch angle on CVG for Models T7-S, T8-S and
T32-S
Generalized discharge equations are needed for this investigated
shape and other shapes tested by the Discusser. The Discusser is
inviting the Author or any other researcher who may be interested
in this subject and have nonlinear regression model to work
jointly with Discusser on the collected data using statistical meth-
ods in order to develop a general discharge equation (s) for the
combined device (s). However, one approach is to sum up the
discharge due to weir to that due to gate and using an adjustment
factor due to interaction of over-under flows as used by Negm
(1996) in Eq. (1) and by Negm et al. (2000). For 90° V-notch
0.60
Fitting
coefficient of the weir and Cdg is the discharge coefficient of the
gate. The calculations of Cdw and he are based on the study of
Kindsvater and Carter (1957). A value of Cdw=0.579 may be ap-
propriate. The values of Cdg are based on the study of Rajaratnam
and Subramanya (1967) and also listed as a function of Zg/H in
0.34 Subramanya (1982).
Based on the experimental data, an average value of F is obtained
for free flow (F=0.973) and another one for the submerged flow
(F=1.046) for models with 90° V-notch weir as insufficient data
are available to determine accurate Cdw for non 90° V-notches,
Bos (1976). The interaction factor F can be expressed as a func-
tion of H/Zg. For free flow F=0.8987+0.019(H/Zg) and for sub-
merged flow F=1.0839-0.0095(H/Zg). Fig. (26) shows the varia-
tions of F with H/Zgfor both free and submerged flow.
Fig. (27) presents the comparison between the measured and the
predicted combined discharge using Eq. (10) for both cases of
free and submerged flow based on the average F. The deviations
from measurements are mostly within ±5% except very few ob-
30 30
(a) (b)
b/Zg
20 20
Qp (l/s)

Qp (l/s)

2.0
1.5
0.50
CVG

1.0
10 10

0.40
0 0
0.30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Qm (l/s) Qm (l/s)
0.30 0.40 0.50 Fig. 27 Measured discharges versus predicted ones using Eq.(10) for
Zg/H models having 90o V-notch weir based on average value of F (a)
Fig. 25 Effect of b/Zg on CVG for models T9-S, T10-S and T11-S free flow and (b) submerged flow.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6 761

servations.
References
[1] Ahmed, F.H. (1985), Characteristics of discharge of the
combined flow through sluice gate and over weirs, Journal
of Engineering and Technology, Iraq, Vol 3, No. 2, pp. 49-
63,, (in Arabic).
[2] Alhamid, A.A., Negm, A.M. and Al-Brahim, A.M.
(1997), Discharge equation for proposed self-cleaning de-
vice, Journal of King Saud University, Engineering Science,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Vol.9, No.1, pp.13-24.
[3] Alhamid, A.A., Husain, D and Negm, A.M. (1996), Dis-
charge equation for combined flow over rectangular weirs
and below inverted triangular weirs, Arab Gulf Journal for
Scientific Research, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Vol. 14, No.3,
pp. 595-607.
[4] Bos, M.G. (Editor) (1976), Discharge measurement struc-
tures, Oxford & IBH publishing Co., New Delhi.
[5] Charles, J., (1956), Engineering fluid mechanics, Trans-
lated from the German by P.O. Wolf, Blackie & Son Ltd.,
London and Glasgow, pp 157-169.
[6] Chow, V.T. (1959), Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York, pp.507-510.
[7] El-Saiad, A.A., Negm, A.M. and Waheed El-Din, U.
(1995), Simultaneous flow over weirs and below gates, Civil
Engineering Research Magazine, Civil Engineering Depart-
ment, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo,
Egypt, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 62-71.
[8] Kindsvater, C.E. and Carter, R.W. (1957), ‘Discharge
characteristics of thin plate weirs’, J. of Hyd. Div., Proc.
ASCE, Vol.83, Dec., pp.1-36.
[9] Naudascher, E. (1991), Hydrodynamic forces, IAHR Hy-
draulic Structures Design Manuals Series, No. 3, AA
Balkema, Rotterdam.
[10] Negm, A.M., El-Saiad, A.A., Alhamid, A.A., and
Husain, D. (1994), Characteristics of simultaneous flow
over weir and below inverted V-notches, Civil Engineering
Research Magazine, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty
of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 16,
No. 9, pp. 786-799.
[11] Negm, A.M. (1995), Characteristics of combined flow over
weirs and under gate with unequal contractions. In Advances
in Hydro-science and Engineering, CHES & IRTCES, Edi-
tors, Vol. II, Part A, Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. on Hydro-science
and Engineering, ICHE-’95, 22-26 March, Tsighua Univer-
sity Press, Beijing, China, pp. 285-292.
[12] Negm, A.M. (1996), Discharge prediction model for simul-
taneous underflow-overflow, Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Flow
Modelling and Turbulence Meaurements, Florida, USA, 8-
10, Sep., Balkema Publishers, pp.665-670.
[13] Negm, A.M. (1997), Characteristics of combined flow over
weirs and below gates, Sudan Engineering Sociaty Journal,
Vol. 44, No. 34, Jan., pp. 30-37.
[14] Negm, A.M.; El-Saiad, A.A.; and Saleh, O.K. (1997a),
Characteristics of combined flow over weirs and below sub-
762
merged gates, Proc. of Al-Mansoura Engineering 2nd Int.
Conf. (MEIC’97), 1-3 April, Faculty of Engineering, Al-
Mansoura University, Al-Mansoura, Egypt, VolIII-B,
pp.259-272.
[15] Negm, A.M., Abdel-Aal, G.M., Matin, A.M. and
Alhamid, A.A. (1997b), Discharge equation for free and
submerged flow through combined weir, Proc. of Al-Azhar
Eng. 3rd Int. Conf. (AEIC-97), Dec. 19-22, Faculty of Eng.,
Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, pp.456-470.
[16] Negm, A.M.(2000), Characteristics of simultaneous over-
flow -submerged underflow: (unequal contractions), Engi-
neering Bulletin, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
versity, Vol.35 No.1, March, 2000, pp.137-154.
[17] Negm, A.M., Abdel-Aal, G.M., and El-Saiad, A.A.
(2000), ‘Generalized discharge equation for proposed simul-
taneous flow structures’, Proc. Al-Azhar Eng. 6th Int. Conf.,
AEIC, Cairo, Egypt, Sep. 1-4, pp.247-257.
[18] Negm, A.M., Al-Brahim, A.M., and Alhamid, A.A.
(2002), ‘Combined flow over weirs and under gates’, Jour-
nal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 40, no. 3, pp.359-366.
[19] Rajaratnam, N. and Subramanya, K. (1967), Flow
equation for the sluice gate, J. of Irrigation and Drainage
Div., Proc. ASCE, Sept., pp. 167-186.
[20] Subramanya, K. (1982), Flow in open channels, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, First Revised
Edition, 7th reprint (1992).
[21] Swamee, P.K. (1988), Generalized rectangular weirs equa-
tions, Proc. ASCE, Journal Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 114,
No. 8, August, pp. 945-949.
[22] Swamee, P.K. (1992), Sluice-gate discharge equations,
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Proc.
ASCE, Vol 118, No. 1, Jan./Feb., pp. 57-60.
Notations
The following symbols are used in this discussion:
b width of rectangular gate
F defined interaction factor {F=Qm/(Qw+Qg)}
FG gate Froude number.
hd water depth just downstream the gate.
ht tailwater depth away from the gate.
Q discharge (p for prediction , m for measured, w for weir and
g for gate).
R2 coefficient of determination of a regression equation.
S submergenece ratio, ht/Zg.
Abbreviations
F Free Flow,
S Submerged Flow,
T Triangular,
W Weir,
G Gate,
R Rectangular,
W-FG Discusser’s defined FG= Qc / bZ g 2 gZ g ,
A-FG Author defined FG
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6
SEE Standard error of estimate
Reply by the Author
First of all, the Author would like to express his deep thanks to A.
M. Negm for his interest in the paper and his valuable comments.
As mentioned in the paper, the aim was to consider the effect of
weir height and submergence on discharge coefficient and to ex-
tend the equation developed by Alhamid et al. (1997) for com-
bined V-notch weir-gate devices.
The literature review focuses on related work only, thus not in-
cluding the rectangular weir-gate devices. This information may
be found in other papers by the Author, who believes that such
review is irrelevant to this paper.
Introducing the combined devices, the Author believes that the
studies reported by Chow (1959), and Simons and Senturk (1977)
are related to problems of occasional overflow and the resulting
depth of scour, whereas the work of Ahmed (1985) is devoted to
the use of combined weir-gate devices for flow measurement.
Regarding Eq. (2) and (3), these equations and the number of
dimensionless groups are correct. The denominator in the equa-
tion is a characteristic length and once a specific length is se-
lected, for example H, one group will be dropped from the equa-
tion and the number of dimensionless groups will be reduced.
Regarding the gate Froude number, it cannot be included in the
equations as only the discharge or velocity is considered. Consid-
ering both, discharge and velocity would lead to an implicit equa-
tion where an explicit one is needed.
The Author highlights that the equation developed in this paper
worked well with the Discusser data for free gate flow conditions,
thus confirming measurement accuracy and the developed equa-
tion.
In Fig. (2) and Eq. (5), hd is the depth just downstream the gate
whereas tail water depth is not considered in this study. Discusser
suggested the usage of tail water depth to gate opening ratio as
the submergence ratio, however if this to be done, a relationship
between tail depth and hd is needed. Furthermore, in case of sub-
merged weir condition, criteria for this condition would have to
be specified. Hence, hd is the proper criteria for submerged gate
flow condition.
In the development of Eq. (5), exact channel width of 30.5 cm
was used and the legends of figures containing the B value need
to be adjusted, as mentioned in the errata below.
In reviewing the Discusser results for submerged gate flow condi-
tions the following points were observed:
– In free gate flow conditions the discharge coefficient is usually
higher than that of submerged gate flow conditions, however,
the Discusser data presents the contrary within same models.
For example, simple comparison between model T17-F for free
gate flow conditions in Fig.(12) and model T29-S for sub-
merged gate flow conditions in Fig.(16) shows that both mod-
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6
els have the same geometric dimensions and that the maximum
discharge coefficient for free gate flow condition is about 1.1
while for submerged case it is about 1.35 for the same Zg/H
ratio. This seems to be incorrect. The same can be obtained for
other cases.
– In Table (4) the submergence ratio shows values of tail water
depth higher than the notch crest in most cases, which indicate
submerged weir condition. If the weir is submerged, then
Eq. (5) cannot be used. Additionally, the definition of submer-
gence ratio needs to be carefully specified, and tail water depth
is not appropriate for submerged gate cases.
– In Fig.(16), the Zg/H ratio is very high within some models,
indicating a low value of H, and hence gate flow conditions but
no combined are evident. See for example T29-S (♦ symbol):
for Zg/H values above 0.3, H will be less than Zv
– Fig.(18) percentage error shows an increasing trend with in-
creased CVG values for some models (i.e. T18-S and T27-S).
This indicates a systematic error, which needs to be attended
to.
Based on the above-mentioned points, the Author casts some
doubts on Discusser data accuracy within the submerged gate
flow conditions. These doubts are further confirmed by Eq. (10)
and Fig.(26) where the value of the adjustment factor, F, for sub-
merged gate flow is higher than that for free gate conditions for
all H/Zg values with an average of 0.973 for free gate flow and
1.046 for submerged cases. For a specific geometric combination,
and for the same flow depth H, Eq. (10) will produce discharge
values for submerged gate flow conditions higher than those for
free flow conditions. This is incorrect.
The Author believes that the conclusion presented by the
Discusser regarding submerged gate flow is questionable and the
errors reported in his discussion are not valid. The data presented
in the discussion need to be carefully analysed.
Author insists that the following must be corrected:
– In Eq. (2) q should be g.
– In Eq. (5) (Zv/Zg) should be (Zg/Zv)
– Values of b/B and Zv/B in figures legend need to be adjusted
by the correction factor of 0.984.
– Title of X-axis of Fig.(6) is Zg/H.
The Author welcomes the Discusser’s invitation to work together
developing a more generalized equation for the different types of
combined weir-gate devices under different flow conditions.
References
Simons, D. B. and Senturk, F., 1977, Sediment transport tech-
nology, Water resources publications, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA, pp. 701-714.
763
Closure by the Discusser
The Author sent the Discusser an e-mail message requesting a
copy of the experimental data when JHR forwarded the discus-
sion to him. By that time, the Discusser sent the data to the Au-
thor by e-mail. The Discusser expected that the Author would try
to do more effort to modify or improve the performance of his
equation to extend wide ranges of the involved parameters. But,
instead of doing this hard job, he tried to prove that the discussion
was based on inaccurate or incorrect data. Actually, the Discusser
has the experimental data of the Author because the same data
were used in a previous common work between the Discusser and
the Author (Negm et al. 1997b). For this reason, the Discusser
found no difficulty to include the Author’s data in the discussion.
In fact, the data of the paper are a subset of the discussion’s data.
Careful inspection of all that data indicated that:
1. the data used in the paper have missing ht/Zg forcing the Au-
thor to utilize the hd/Zg as a submergence ratio instead of using
the more conventional one ht/Zg.
2. The Author’s data are a subset of the Discusser’s data and
hence the empirical Eq.(5) is developed based on a limited set
of data leading to some errors when applied to ranges beyond
the limitation of the equations. It is a normal and well known
practice that empirical equations (either linear or nonlinear) are
not applicable beyond their limits.
3. The flow over the weir was free and submerged flow over the
weir was avoided. Only the submergence of the gate was con-
sidered. The depth of water just downstream of the gate is al-
ways not greater than the height of the weir (only three obser-
vations have experimental errors of 0.6%, 0.6% and 0.3%
which may be due to entrained air and turbulence which made
hd not stable, and hence its measurement is somewhat diffi-
cult).
The Author mentioned that the discharge coefficients of sub-
merged gate flow are always less than those of free gate flow.
This is true if the computations of the discharge coefficient of the
gate in both cases are based on the upstream head only
Fig. 28 Comparison of discharge coefficients for free flow and submerged flow of vertical sluice gate
764
[Q=CdgbZg(2gH)0.5] according to Henry (1950). But if the differ-
ential head (H-hd) on the gate is used in the computations of the
discharge coefficients of the submerged flow, the discharge coef-
ficients may be larger than those of the free flow. However,
Subramanya (1982) stated that the discharge coefficient of the
free flow may be used in the estimation of the submerged flow at
the same Zg/H using the equation (Q= CdgbZg{2g(H-hd)}0.5).
Fig. (28) presents a comparison between the values of the dis-
charge coefficients in both cases of free flow (FF) and submerged
flow (SF) (for full width or suppressed gates) based on recent
experimental results of the Author for free flow, Alhamid (1998),
for supercritical submerged flow, Alhamid et al. (2001) and for
subcritical submerged flow, Alhamid et al. (2002). It should be
mentioned that the experimental work of these three papers were
collected using the same laboratory flume that was used to collect
the experimental data for the author’s present paper and the dis-
cussion as well. This figure indicates clearly that the discharge
coefficients for submerged flow are higher than those of the free
flow. Added to the above the fact that the nature of the combined
flow is different from the that of the flow over the weir only and
the flow below the gate only due the interaction of both flows
when combined together. This may explain why the average
value of the Factor F for submerged flow is higher than that for
free flow. Interestingly, the average value of F for other shapes of
combined devices agreed well with the results presented in the
discussion as always the average F for submerged flow is greater
than that of the free flow, Negm (2002). Also, Fig. (28) shows
that there is a difference between the results of Swamee (1992)
and those of Alhamid et al. (2001, 2002) for both free and sub-
merged flow. These differences may be due to an inherent error
in the discharge measurement device used in the flume. This in-
herent error will not affect the qualitative results of any experi-
mental work conducted using the flume but slightly affects the
quantitative results in the form of a systematic or bias error.
The Author mentioned that hd/Zg is the proper submergence crite-
rion while it is well known that the taildepth ratio ht/Zg is the sub-
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6
 mergence criterion because the discharge coefficient of sub-
merged gate flow is mainly described by H/Zg and ht/Zg, Henery
(1950), and Alhamid et al. (2001, 2002).
References
Alhamid, A.A. (1998), Coefficient of discharge for free flow
sluice gates, J. King Saud Univ., Eng. Sci. (1), pp. 33-48.
Alhamid, A.A, Negm, A.M., Abdel-Aal, G.M. and Matin,
M.A. (2001), Effect of taildepth variation on submerged
supercritical flow below silled gates, CERM, Faculty of Engi-
neering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, Jan., Vol.23, No1,
pp. 199-220.
Alhamid, A.A., Negm, A.M., Abdel-Aal, G.M., and Matin,
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH, VOL. 40, 2002, NO. 6
View publication stats
M.A. (2002), Effect of submergence and slopes of under-gate
sill on discharge characteristics of submerged subcritical flow,
Egyptian Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,
EJEST, Oct., Vol.6, No.1, pp.61-82.
Henry, H. (1950), Discussion on diffusion of submerged jets,
Trans. ASCE, Vol. 115, pp. 687-697.
Negm, A.M. (2002), Modeling of submerged simultaneous flow
through combined weirs and gates devices, 5th Int. Conf. On
Hydroscience and Engineering, ICHE2002, Sept. 18-21, War-
saw, Poland.
Subramanya, K. (1982), Flow in open channels, Tata McGraw-
Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1st revised ed., 7th reprint
(1992), p.256.
765