Hydraulics Engineering: Technological Institute of The Philippines 1

Hydraulics Engineering 2018
FINAL EXPERIMENT
TITLE: “A study on the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway having a creager-ofitserov profile using Multi-
purpose Teaching Flume”
II. Objectives:
This study aims to examine the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway with different number of
functional openings.
1. To observe the operation of the siphon spillway
2. To calculate the discharge capacity in different number of openings
3. To determine the most efficient number of opening to be used in dams and leeves that will execute the
best results on releasing overflowing water.
III. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs):
The students shall be able to:

 Use the techniques and skills in Hydraulics Engineering to determine the discharge capacity using siphon
spillway.
 To be knowledgeable of the properties of water that will be focused at in the experiment to be held.
 Expand the knowledge on other use of spillways in other experiments.
 Apply the idea of the result of the experiment in relation to Hydraulic structures such as dams and leeves.
 Apply the techniques and skills in using siphon spillway relevant to professional engineering practice.
IV. Discussion:
The physical model is an incomparable tool of communication; that provides a three-dimensional and
complete overall appreciation of project and facilitates the explanation of the hydraulic phenomena. Physical
hydraulic models have an important further role of assistance to the decision-making (Chanson, 2004). The siphon
spillway is a structure in closed duct, generally with rectangular section in a typical width to height ratio b/a of 1.5to
2.5and an aeration cross-section at 3 to 5 % of the siphon crest section. The siphon spillway works under
increasing discharge like a weir. At a certain discharge, the priming occurs and the ﬂow is pressurized for larger
discharges (Vischer and Hager, 1997). Several investigations have been carried out for the explanation of
general characteristics of an air regulated siphon (Babaeyan-Koopaei, 2002).
Technological Institute of the Philippines

1|Page
Generally, the spillways are installed to evacuate the excess water or over flow that the reservoir could
not store. In diversion dams, the spillway is used to bypass the overflow of the system. The spillway can be
installed independently from the body of the dam, or it can be part of it, similar to spillway in concrete dams. Siphon
sillways consists of closed system with the shape of inverted U. In stalling this kind of spillways, the internal part of
the dam from the weir. The act of siphon starts when the air inside the upper bend located above the crest is
removed. Then due to the suction effect of gravity force of water, underneath part of the siphon, the flow would be
consistent (Gramatky 1928).
Abstract:
The main advantage of siphon spillway is that with minor increase in the upper part of the water level, a
significant increase is observed in the spillway discharge. The other advantages are automatically wok and their
good performance without the need for mechanical instruments or other stimulants (Samani 1997).
Three models of the gate were tested and examined; each of them constituted of several configurations
differentiated by the number of the functional openings. The first model was tested to three openings, the second
model consists of two openings. The third model consists in testing one opening. By this we aim limiting the
optional cross-section of the siphon, that ensures a maximum discharge, maintaining constant the other conditions
of influence (mainly, the flow conditions and longitudinal section of the siphon).
Introduction:

2|Page
One type of spillways for dams in physical models is deliberately tested. It is a siphon spillway having the
Creager-Ofitserov profile, studied in four alternative models with different number of functional openings with
various configurations based on variation of the cross section. The study highlighted a clear distinction for not and
almost complete prime areas for low head and complete prime areas for the remainder of the values of the head
applied to the level upstream. It is to be announced that the coefficients of discharge of the siphon’s models
increase very quickly while going from the first to the fourth model, for this purpose the optimal cross section
corresponding to the maximum coefficient of discharge was fixed. The variation at the same time of the coefficient
of discharge, the ratio of the head on vertical dimension at the crown of the siphon and the Froude number were
formulated. At the particular case of priming, this formulation deduces a new relationship making possible to
envisage the Froude number for a known coefficient of discharge.
IV. Resources
 Siphon spill way having a creager-ofitserov profile
Siphon spillway is a hydraulic structure that is usually provided to release flood that cannot be
safely stored in the reservoir in order to prevent damage to the dam and it’s downstream.
The siphon spillway is installed in a flume with 1000cm x 60cm x 50cm (L*H*W) size
 Multi-purpose teaching flume
Multi-purpose teaching flume used to measure the flow rate of water in open channel. A flume is
defined as a special shaped, fixed hydraulic structure that under free-flow conditions forces flow to
accelerate in swell manner that the flow rate through the flume that can be characterized by a level-no-flow
relationship as an application to the single head.

3|Page
 Ruler
Sometimes called a ruler or line gauge, is a device used in technical drawing, engineering and
building to draw straight lines.
 Caliper
A caliper is a device used to measure the distance between two opposite sides of an object.
V. Procedures
1. Prepare all the materials needed in the experiment.
2. Measure cross-sectional area of the Siphon Spillway and the opening of the different gate.
3. Position the Siphon Spillway according to desire location in the Teaching flume.
4. Set the flow meter needed for the data.
5. Close the ventilation valve.
6. Wait for 15 seconds to get the constant flow of the water.
7. Set the inclination of the teaching flume to 0o.
8. Record the measurements needed for the data.
TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

1
2
3
4
5
(Table 3.1 Data Gathered)
9. Repeat steps 7-8 for different value of flow rate (5 flow rate)
10. Repeat steps 7-9 for the 3 gates.

4|Page
30 cm
18 cm
1cm
Figure 3.1 Gate1.8with 3 opening

1.8 (18cm x1.8
1.8cm) separated with 0.5cm
7.5 cm
30 cm
18 cm
Technological Institute of the Philippines 1cm

5|Page
1.8 1.8
7.5 cm
Figure 3.2 Gate with 2 opening (18cm x 1.8cm)
30 cm
18 cm
Technological Institute of the Philippines 1cm

6|Page
1.8
7.5 cm
Figure 3.3 Gate with 1 opening (18cm x 1.80cm)
Computing the Discharge Coefficient of the siphon spillway:
The discharge evacuated by the siphon considered as a pressurized conduct is given by the following
relation:
Where: Qin = discharge of the siphon spillway (m 3/s)
C = coefficient of discharge for the siphon
A = cross-section at opening of the siphon (0.084 x 0.165) m 2
g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)

7|Page
Hact = an actual head according conditions of flow at exit of the siphon (m)
To compute for Vp :
Where: h = is the height of the difference in the height of the water and the spillway (m)
Vp = velocity at point p (m2/s)
To compute for Pressure (-) at point b:
Where: Va = Velocity at the opening of the spillway (m 2/s)
P = Negative pressure (Pascal)
To Compute for V a:
Where: Va = Velocity at the opening of the spillway (m 2/s)
Qin = flow meter of the teaching flume (m3/s)
A = Area of the opening of the spillway (m2)

8|Page
Computing for Q out:
Where: Qout = discharge of the siphon spillway (m 3/s)
C = coefficient of discharge for the siphon (0.6)
A = cross-section at point p (0.35 x 0.072) m 2
VII. Data and Results
Table 7.1 Data Gathered without a gate:

1 2.50 0.139 0.050 0.950 5.417 -2.765
2 3.00 0.140 0.060 0.950 5.171 -2.765
3 3.50 0.127 0.070 1.067 5.808 -2.882
4 4.00 0.127 0.080 1.067 5.808 -2.881
5 4.50 0.126 0.090 1.138 6.194 -2.959
(Table 7.1 shows the data for discharge capacity of spillway with no gate)
Table 7.2 Data Gathered for Three Opening:

1 2.50 0.120 0.093 1.129 5.358 -2.948
2 3.00 0.125 0.112 1.084 5.052 -2.896
3 3.50 0.125 0.130 1.084 5.052 -2.894
4 4.00 0.128 0.149 1.076 4.859 -2.883
5 4.50 0.128 0.168 1.076 4.859 -2.880
(Table 7.2 shows the data for discharge capacity of spillway with a gate with 3 openings)
Table 7.3 Data Gathered for Two Opening:

9|Page

1 2.50 0.123 0.140 1.103 5.176 -2.914
2 3.00 0.125 0.168 1.085 5.052 -2.890
3 3.50 0.126 0.196 1.076 4.988 -2.875
4 4.00 0.129 0.224 1.048 4.792 -2.839
5 4.50 0.129 0.252 1.048 4.792 -2.833
(Table 7.3 shows the data for discharge capacity of spillway with a gate with 2 openings)
Table 7.4 Data Gathered for One Opening:

1 2.50 0.133 0.280 1.010 4.518 -2.786
2 3.00 0.137 0.336 0.970 4.227 -2.729
3 3.50 0.142 0.392 0.919 3.830 -2.661
4 4.00 0.147 0.448 0.863 3.389 -2.587
5 4.50 0.149 0.505 0.840 3.195 -2.540
(Table 7.4 shows the data for discharge
capacity of spillway with a gate with 1
opening)
Table 7.5 TRIAL No gate 3 opening 2 opening 1 Opening Discharge

1 5.417 5.358 5.176 4.518
Capacity of 2 5.171 5.052 5.052 4.227 Siphon
3 5.808 5.052 4.988 3.830
spillway: 4 5.808 4.859 4.792 3.389
5 6.194 4.859 4.792 3.195
Average 5.630 5.036 4.960 4.735
(Table 7.5 shows the data for discharge capacity of spillway with gate)
Figure 7.1 Graph results of the discharge capacity of the Siphon spillway

10 | P a g e
In figure 4.1 shows the graph of the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway without gate and has gate
with different opening. It shows that the graph is declining because the discharge capacity is dropping because the
cross-sectional area of the inflow of the water in the teaching flume become smaller.
Figure 7.2 Statistical Analysis of the Data gathered

11 | P a g e
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Column 1 5 28.398 5.6796 0.156303
Column 2 5 25.18 5.036 0.041713
Column 3 5 24.8 4.96 0.028088
Column 4 5 19.159 3.8318 0.307161
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
6.17E-
Between Groups 8.843899 3 2.947966 22.11256 06 3.238872
Within Groups 2.133062 16 0.133316
Total 10.97696 19
Figure 7.2 shows the Statistical Analysis of the Data gathered of discharge capacity of the siphon
spillway. It uses ANOVA- Single Factor. It is used when comparing more than three groups based on one factor
variable. An observation is given by the average discharge capacity of the spillway, plus the effect of the gate. And
an “error” term, every gate is different and therefore any discharge will be different. A one-way ANOVA will tell you
that at least two groups were different from each other. But it won’t tell you what groups were different. If your test
returns a significant f-statistic, you may need to run an ad hoc test (like the Least Significant Difference test) to tell
you exactly which groups had a difference in means.
It is stated that if the Sig value is greater than 05, You can conclude that there is no statistically significant
difference between your three conditions. You can conclude that the differences between condition Means are
likely due to chance and not likely due to the IV manipulation. If the Sig value is less than or equal to .05, You can
conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between your three conditions. You can conclude that the

12 | P a g e
differences between condition Means are not likely due to change and are probably due to the IV manipulation.
We can see that the significance value is 6.17E-06, which is below 0.05. and, therefore, there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean discharge capacity of the spillway.
Calculation for the Statistical Analysis:
This computation shows the average discharge capacity of the 4 different treats.
This computation shows the average discharge capacity of all the trials of the experiment.
This computation shows the difference between the mean of each treats and the average discharge
capacity of all the trials.

13 | P a g e
ANOVA Table:
-Column df (degree of freedom):
We have 3 different Treatments ⇒ dftreat = 4 − 1 = 3
We have 19 different measurements ⇒ dftot = 20 − 1 = 19
dftreat + dfres = dftot ⇒ dfres = 19 − 2 = 16
-Column SS (sum of squares):
We also want to weigh each squared deviation by the size of the sample. In other words, a deviation is
given greater weight if it’s from a larger sample. Hence, we’ll multiply each squared deviation by each sample size
and add them up. This is called the sum-of-squares for between-group variability
Between groups:
We can measure Within-group variability by looking at how much each value in each sample differs
from its respective sample mean. So first, we’ll take the squared deviation of each value from its respective sample
mean and add them up. This is the sum of squares for within-group variability.
Within groups:
Total sum of square:

14 | P a g e
-Column MS (mean square):
We find the sum of each squared deviation and divide it by the degrees of freedom. For our between-
group variability, we will find each squared deviation, weigh them by their sample size, sum them up, and divide by
the degrees of freedom ( ), which in the case of between-group variability is the number of sample means
(k) minus 1.
Like between-group variability, we then divide the sum of squared deviations by the degrees of
freedom to find a less-biased estimator for the average squared deviation (essentially, the average-sized
square from the figure above). Again, this quotient is called the mean square, but for within-group
variability: . This time, the degrees of freedom is the sum of the sample sizes (N) minus the number of
samples (k). Another way to look at degrees of freedom is that we have the total number of values (N), and
subtract 1 for each sample:
-F value:

15 | P a g e
VIII. Observation
In our research, in measuring the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway includes a gate with different
number of openings; 3 opening, 2 opening and 1 opening. During conduction of the experiment, the researchers
observed that the discharge capacity of the siphon spillway is fluctuating. By doing so, the researchers took the
average of the discharge to get a precise data.
IX. Conclusion
Based on the data gathered the following conclusion where derived:
1. The discharge capacity of the spillway was calculated using the Bernoulli’s Theorem. The relation between
the head and unit discharge for the gate with one, two and three opening was obtained from the results of
the experiment. These results were extrapolated to the actual discharge coefficient of the spillway.
2. The average discharge capacity of the siphon spillway with a gate is 5.630 m 3/s, the discharge capacity of
the siphon spillway with a gate that has three opening is 5.036 m 3/s, with two opening is 4.960 m 3/s and
with one opening is 4.735 m3/s.
3. Three different situations for inflow-gate opening were computed. The results show that a gate with one
opening is more efficient compared to the spillway without a gate because the discharge capacity of the
spillway drops by 16% by using it.
4. Based on the analyzed data and results it can be concluded that a siphon spillway that has a gate can be
used to control the release of flows from dams or leeves into a downstream area.

16 | P a g e
Recommendation:
Based on the results gathered and conclusions drawn, some recommendations are considered needed to
further explore:
1. The researchers recommend further study on the discharge coefficient of the Siphon spillway that has an
orifice.
2. The researchers recommend conducting a follow-up study about the effect of the gate on the spillway.
3. The researchers recommend a different cross-sectional area and obtain its specific discharge and
compare the results in parallel to our study.
4. The researchers recommend that they use a different type of gate.
X. Related Literature
The study entitled “Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the Creager-Ofitserov Profile ”
stated that the physical model is an incomparable tool of communication; that provides a three-dimensional and
complete overall appreciation of project and facilitates the explanation of the hydraulic phenomena. Physical
hydraulic models have an important further role of assistance to the decisionmaking (Chanson, 2004). The siphon
spillway is a structure in closed duct, generally with rectangular section in a typical width to height ratio b/a of 1.5 to
2.5 and an aeration cross-section at 3 to 5 % of the siphon crest section. The siphon spillway works under
increasing discharge like a weir. At a certain discharge, the priming occurs and the flow is pressurized for larger
discharges (Vischer and Hager, 1997). Several investigations have been carried out for the explanation of general
characteristics of an air regulated siphon (Babaeyan-Koopaei, 2002).

17 | P a g e
Our investigation in the present contribution consists in making an experimental hydraulic study of the
siphon spillway having the Creager – Ofitserov profile,
in order to determine their capacity of discharge and
may be compared thereafter as possible, in
eventual separated study, with its similar free overspill
dam having also the Creager – Ofitserov profile
which is frequently used in evacuation facilities of
dams.
Four models of the siphon were tested and examined; each of them constituted of several configurations
differentiated by the number of the functional openings. The first model was tested to four, three and two openings;

18 | P a g e
characterized by the ratio b/a = 1. The second model can be subdivided in one, two and three openings for b/a =
1.33. The third model consists in testing two cases: one and two openings to b/a = 2. The fourth model with single
opening is defined by b/a = 4. By this we aim limiting the optimal cross-section of the siphon, that ensures a
maximum discharge, maintaining constant the other conditions of influence (mainly, the flow conditions and
longitudinal section of the siphon). Finally, a particular attention is given to the relationship f(µ, Fr, H/a) = 0
The capacity of discharge for four models of the siphon spillways profiled in the Creager – Ofitserov type
has been experimentally examined. The study devoted to the four siphon models shows clear distinction of the
priming areas, not and almost complete for low heads and complete one for the remaining of the values of the
head H applied to the level upstream. It is to be announced that the value of the coordinate of the point of the
siphons priming increases with the augmentation of the coefficient of discharge µ. The study also allows the
conclusion that this coefficient increases while going from the first to the fourth model. However, it is almost
constant and independent of the 405 number of functional openings in the same hydraulic system defined by each
tested model. Taking into account the total cross-section of the siphons, with their total capacities, the study
defines b/a ratio, that characterizes the optimal section corresponding to the maximal coefficient of discharge
µmax.
(Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim, Bachir Achour (2006). Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the
Creager-Ofitserov Profile. International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 33, No.5. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/ES_SS_CO.pdf)
This study entitled “Experimental Comparative Study of Siphon Spillway and Over-Flow Spillway ” tested two types of
spillways. The first one is a weir considered as an over-flow spillway with Creager profile, the second is a siphon

19 | P a g e
spillway with the same longitudinal profile. Concerning the siphon, the study recognized a clear distinction for no
complete prime areas relating to low heads and complete prime areas for the remainder of the values of heads
applied to the level upstream. The field of convenience of the siphon spillway compared to the weir was defined.
The experimentation allowed also proposing two relationships
between flow over a weir and the siphon for the same range of
measured heads. The capacity of discharge of weir and siphon
spillway profiled in Creager type was theoretically reminded from
and experimentally examined. The comparative study of models
siphons spillway and weir made possible to define the fields according to value of the ratio H/a where the siphon is
considered to be better in evacuation than the weir under the same conditions of flow and vice versa. Finally, the
study presents linear and non-linear relationships between the flow over the weir considered as an over-flow
spillway and the siphon spillway.
When the rectangular siphon duct operates with full section without of air bubbles, the work is considered
in complete priming; thus it is possible to conclude: A clear distinction of the no complete priming areas, for low
head values applied to the level upstream of the siphon, as well as a complete priming area beginning at the
operation point characterized by a head H equal to (a = 4.3 cm). The value of the priming flow Qspriming at head H
is 20.20l/s when the siphon operates with total section A = 73.96cm2.

20 | P a g e
(Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim2 & Bachir Achour (2009). Experimental Comparative Study of Siphon Spillway and Over-Flow Spillway,
Lecturer, Research Laboratory in Applied Hydraulics, Department of Hydraulic, University of Batna, Algeria. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/502-1748-1-PB.pdf)
This study entitled “Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections ” stated that Siphon
spillways are structures that use in many dams and irrigation networks and drainage. The siphon spillway works
under increasing discharge like an ogee spillway. At a certain point of discharge, the priming occurs, and the flow is
pressurized for larger discharges. Estimating the relationship between discharge coefficient and discharge with
reservoir level in this spillway is an important parameter in the designing process. Commonly, the cross sections of
siphon spillways are rectangular. The main
purpose of this research is to make a
comparison between circular and
rectangular cross section and investigate
the changes of discharge coefficient in
these cross sections. In order to achieve
these purposes two section physical
models of siphon spillway, with equal cross sections are made. In this study, all experiments were done in condition
siphon spillway non-aeration or spillway with black water.
In the present experimental work, by using two physical models of siphon spillway with different cross
section, discharge coefficient in two sections was studied. Experiments show that discharge coefficient in siphon
spillway with circular cross section is higher than rectangular section that this one is better and more suitable for
rapid depletion of water from reservoir.

21 | P a g e
With comparing the changes of discharge coefficient in rectangular and circular cross sections of siphon
spillways based on Reynolds number as shown in Fig. 6 is observed that in a consistent level of tank water in both
cross sections of spillway, the flow in circular cross section has a higher Reynolds number, that is because of
higher velocity in this cross section than the rectangular one.
(Amin Ghafourian and Mohd. Nordin Adlan (2012). Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections, School of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c433/6a74da47bff1c17dc7b7d93104623f968d20.pdf)
This study entitled “The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic” stated that in many water and electricity projects
such as dams, releasing flow with specific discharge and considering large capacity to control spare volume of
water and completely necessary. These types of structure, which are known as spillway are used to govern
probably flood out of Reservoir. Spillway structure are so complicated and hard building for study and analyzing
hydraulic behavior. My developed software could be utilized. In some cases, because of lack of knowledge
physical model should be build. Then, analyzing would be done subsequently. In this research upstream flow of
siphon spillway with rectangular have been simulate numerically. This simulation is based on Physical model which
are built on water and research center of power authority of Tehran province .in this study fresh water have been
circulated two types of bucket with 45 & 60 degree for outlet are used. The results show that when discharge rise
mildly. Discharge coefficient are increased as well and with 45 degree bucket the coefficient higher than 60degree

22 | P a g e
bucket, finally it can be concluded that siphon spillway gaiting 45degree bucket is higher and better
• when discharge increase,coefficient always does not move upward.
• Coefficient at 45degree bucket is always higher coefficient at 60degree bucket
• change at end section of siphon spillway did not affect on discharge coefficient
• according to the results, it can certainly
say that when high at water at upstream is
high when spillway is completely submerging
siphon operation is very quickly happened
because of not entering air from exiting
section of spillway.
• increasing angle at exiting bucket against
horizon large head loss (different between water level at upstream and downstream) can be created.
• siphon structure operation at submerge condition is better than other condition.
(Kamanbedast, A., Gholizadeh, B (2012). The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(5): 2548-2553,
http://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2012/2548-2553.pdf)

23 | P a g e
The study entitled “Effect of Types of Weir on Discharge” stated that the study of types of weir on discharge is
important as the knowledge of the accurate measurement of discharges helps in understanding of the flow
mechanism as well as designing the hydraulic structures for future. Structures such as rectangular weir, v notch
weir and crump weir are placed in a channel to measure the flow rate. By using Bernoulli’s equation, weir equation
are derived and used to determine the flow rate. The main objective is to determine the optimum discharge for
different types of weirs. This discharge is important in designing the hydraulic structure. Overestimated discharge
may cause failure to the structure and if the discharge is underestimated, it may not fulfill the design requirements.
They have concluded that the results obtained show the effect of types on weirs on discharge. As the main
objective is to determine the optimum discharge for different types of weirs, it can be concluded that the discharges
of the weirs are based on the coefficient of discharge. This coefficient of discharge is related to other parameters
as well especially the head of water over the crest. Different sizes of weir opening and different angle of notches
are important factor to be considered as well as the geometry of the weir affects the head of water over the crest
and the discharges, too. It can be concluded that these parameters are very important to be considered as from
there, it can provide real value for detail design of using the design in irrigation and industries development.
(http://www.feng.unimas.my/JCEST/images/article/Volume5Issue2/UJCEVol5Issue2Paper6.pdf )
The study entitled “Hydraulic Structures” used the ogee-crested spillway, because of its superb hydraulic
characteristics, has been one of the most studied hydraulic structures. Its ability to pass flows efficiently and safely,
when properly designed, with relatively good flow measuring capabilities, has enabled engineers to use it in a wide
variety of situations. Although much is understood about the general ogee shape and its flow characteristics, it is
also understood that a deviation from the standard design parameters such as a change in upstream flow
conditions, slightly modified crest shape, or construction variances can change the flow properties. These small
changes often require engineers to evaluate the crest and determine whether or not the change or deviation will be
detrimental to the spillway’s performance. Such is the case when an updated probable maximum flood calculation
requires a spillway to pass a larger flow than it was designed to handle.
The main purpose of this study was to compare results from a physical model with that of a numerical
model for flow over an uncontrolled ogee crest. Existing USACE and USBR data have also been added as a
comparison to existing references and as a convenience to the reader. An evaluation of the pressure tap data from
the physical model indicated that 3D effects are relatively small and only influence the flow near the wall. It was
observed visually that there was a slight rise in the water surface elevation near the wall, due to the viscous effect

24 | P a g e
of the wall. Using the numerical model, one flow rate was computationally modeled in three dimensions. Similar to
the physical model, an increase in water surface elevation was noted near the wall. It was also noted that
pressures changed laterally across the crest. However, the variation was not significant. A comparison of the
discharge coefficients for this flow rate (He /Hd = 0.87) resulted in the discharge coefficient being 0.743 for the
physical model, 0.740 for the 3D computational model, and 0.745 for the 2D computational model. Based on this
comparison, it was determined that 2D analysis was sufficient and computationally faster.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3383250/FloSci-Bib39-01.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1549211985&Signature=DT%2Fr2%2Bm6bQ0sOhDrvnP8R5Ea%2F%2FE
%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DFlow_over_ogee_spillway_Physical_and_num.pdf
The study entitled “Simulation of Pizometer in Dam Siphon Spillways ” stated that Pizometric pressure in siphon
spillways is studied in the previous research. Before and even up until now, physical models are constructed in
hydraulic laboratories to study distribution of pizometric pressure in siphon spillways, but they are expensive, time-
consuming and many difficulties associated with scaling effects and measurement devices. Nowadays, using
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) codes, flow behavior in the hydraulic structures can be investigated in
reasonable time and expense. This paper describes how the kind of inlet and outlet and longitudinal profile of the
siphon spillways influences the pizometric pressure. A physical model and its several attachments plus finite
element computational fluid dynamics software, "Fluent" (ver. 6.0) is used in this research program. Findings from
physical model are compared with computational results. Ten pizometers were attached along the entire length of
the siphon spillway's physical model. Pizometric pressures were measured for different flow conditions and some
part of the gathered data entered into "Fluent" software as boundary and initial conditions. Results from several
runs of software compared with corresponding experimental data. It is shown that there is a close agreement
between physical model and "Fluent" predictions. As a result, "Fluent" has been recommended for modeling of the
pizometric pressures in the siphon spillways.
(S.H. Musavi-Jahromi, Simulation of Pizometric Pressure in Dam Siphon Spillways, Department of Hydraulic Structures,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=95XSBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA463&dq=freeflow+spillway+&ots=VanTWbg2RB&sig=rKmy3kN5Y2qm5eFQnkj43ahTyPQ
&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=freeflow%20spillway&f=true)
The study entitled “Simulation flows over an air-regulated Siphon Spillway ” stated that the air-regulated siphon
spillways are adopted on streams that are subjected to flash floods or where there is insufficient space to provide

25 | P a g e
conventional weirs. Discharge in an air – regulated spillway is solely governed by the area of the waterway at
throat section. Air – regulated siphon spillway work automatically for a wide range of discharges even for a small
rise in the upstream water level, without any mechanical or human interference. The physical model of air-
regulated siphon was made of acrylic and mounted in a glass sided channel at RGKUT, Basar. The present work
focuses on the experimental studies carried out for various discharges ranging from 4.3 lps to 7.2 lps. The
simulation studies were carried out using ANSYS-CFD. The simulations were extended to determine the flow
pattern and the free surface level on the upstream and downstream of the siphon in the flume. The user-defined
macro was generated to evaluate the flow pattern upstream, at the crest level of the siphon and downstream of the
air-regulated siphon spillway. The comparative analysis proved that the Fluent software is a powerful tool in
evaluating the flow properties of the model even in the absence of physical modeling.
Air- regulated
siphons are very much useful as
a means for safely disposing
off the flood water to the
downstream of the dam in the
situations where manual
interference is difficult. The present study was made to evaluate and emphasize that CFD analysis is an interesting

26 | P a g e
and user-friendly tool for simulation of complicated studies. For large and fine mesh cases, the simulation time step
generally adopted is 0.001. Hence, the computational time is enormous. This is the prime limitation of the present
study.
(Prasanna S V S N D L & Suresh Kumar N (2018), Simulation of flows over an Air-Regulated Siphon Spillway, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Volume 15, Issue 4 Ver. V (Jul. - Aug. 2018), PP 19-25, file:///E:/CE%20411%20-
%20HYDRAULICS/Design%20Experiment/PDF/C1504051925.pdf)
The research entitled “Spillways” discuss about the siphon spillway may be constructed in the body of a
concrete dam when space is not available for an overflow spillway. It has a limited capacity. Disadvantage of
siphon spillway: A the siphon is primed the flow would result excessive vibrations in the dam body which may
cause expansion problems in the joints. There is a possibility of cavitationfor negative pressures, which is affected
by the head between upstream and downstream water levels. Repair and maintenance of siphon spillways are
difficult.
Discharge Q = CdA (2gh)1/2
where Cd: discharge coefficient (≈0.9)
A: flow area of siphon
h: the elevation difference between the upstream water level and end of
the barrel. When the downstream end is submerged, h is elevation difference
between the upstream and downstream water levels.
(Assist. Prof. Dr. BertuğAkıntuğ (2012). SPILLWAYS. Middle East Technical University. file:///E:/CE
%20411%20-%20HYDRAULICS/Design%20Experiment/PDF/CVE471%20Lecture%20Notes
%204%20-%20Spillways.pdf)

27 | P a g e
The research entitled “determination of discharge coefficient and head-discharge relationships of different hydraulic
structures” discussed the measurement of flow in river and open channel is required for irrigation management
purposes including water resources planning, pollution prevention, and, flood control. Existing method of river flow
measurements consists mainly of the velocity area method and the use of hydraulic structures like weirs and
flumes. Almost any kind of obstacle that partially restricts the flow of water in an irrigation channel can be used as a
measuring device, provided that it can be calibrated. A flow measurement structure is generally designed to act as
a control in an open channel in order to provide a unique relationship between the upstream head and the
discharge.
Following structures are commonly used for discharge measurement namely Broad Crested Weir, Crump
Weir, Radial Gate, Sluice Gate, Dam Spillway etc. Gilles Belaud (1943) has studied the contraction coefficient
under sluice gates on flat beds for both free flow and submerged conditions based on the principle of momentum
conservation, relying on an analytical determination of the pressure force exerted on the upstream face of the gate
together with the energy equation. Binne (1952) analysed twodimensional free motion of a perfect liquid under a
sluice-gate in an open horizontal channel. Bose (1989) described hydraulic theory related to hydraulic structure. He
has concluded that the major demands on hydraulic structure by providing specialized and technical knowledge on
the more common types of structures now being used throughout the world. Keller (1989) has described a
hydraulic model study of an existing sloping crest Crump weir is described. Two models of scales 1:10 and 1:3
were tested. At relatively large heads, the structure behaves as one half of a flat-V Crump weir with the same
transverse crest slope. At lower heads, the flow cross section becomes strongly nonsymmetrical with a consequent
significant decrease in the value of the discharge coefficient. The critical head at which departure from a constant
discharge coefficient commences is sensitive to the extent of upstream sedimentation in the channel. The sloping
crest Crump weir should not be used for flow measurement in a straight channel without an associated model
study or an extensive field calibration. Hudson (1990) checked the calibrations performed on the Crump weirs

28 | P a g e
show that accurate operation of Crump weirs is feasible in non-standard Conditions provided that their calibrations
do not rely solely on British Standard recommendations. For free flow, it is related to upstream depth and gate
opening, whereas for submerged flow, in addition to these parameters, it depends on tail-water depth. He
developed discharge coefficient equations for free and submerged flows along with the criterion for determination
of free and submerged flow. Hager (1992) analyzed the flow features over the broad-crested weir with vertical
upstream wall and sharp-crested corner experimentally. Chanson (1995) has concluded that Broad Crested weir
can be used for accurate measurement, more importantly he has concluded that Broad crested weir can be used
for high tail water submergence.
Adulaziz A. Allahamid (1997) concluded that sill shape and sill height plays an important role on the
discharge coefficient of sluice gate. JungFu Yen (2001) investigated various characteristics of a vertical sluice gate
in a rectangular flatbed channel. Gogus and Define (2006) performed a series of laboratory experiments in order to
investigate the effects of width of the lower weir crest and step height of broad-crested weirs of rectangular
compound cross section on the values of the discharge coefficient, the approach velocity coefficient, and the
modular limit.
The average value of Coefficient of Discharge for Broad Crested Weir, Crump Weir, Sluice Gate, Radial
Gate and Dam Spillway was found to be 0.44, 0.85, 0.76, 0.82 and 1.03 respectively.
 Variation of with h/a had been found linear relationship in all cases.
 For Broad Crested Weir and Radial Gate, ‘ ’ was almost constant with increase in h/a.
 Coefficient of discharge ( ) increased with h/a in case of crump weir, Sluice Gate, Radial Gate and Dam
Spillway.
 All the selected hydraulic structures showed power relationship between head and discharge.

29 | P a g e
XI. Documentation

30 | P a g e
XII. Reference
[1] Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim, Bachir Achour (2006). Experiments for the Discharge Capacity of the Siphon Spillway Having the
Creager-Ofitserov Profile - International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 33, No.5. file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell
%20Lachica/Downloads/ES_SS_CO.pdf
[2] Larbi Houichi, Ghassan Ibrahim2 & Bachir Achour (2009). Experimental Comparative Study of Siphon Spillway and Over-Flow
Spillway - Lecturer, Research Laboratory in Applied Hydraulics, Department of Hydraulic, University of Batna, Algeria.
file:///C:/Users/Erika%20Nell%20Lachica/Downloads/502-1748-1-PB.pdf
[3] Amin Ghafourian and Mohd. Nordin Adlan (2012). Discharge Coefficient in Siphon Spillway with Different Cross Sections - School of
Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c433/6a74da47bff1c17dc7b7d93104623f968d20.pdf
[4] Kamanbedast, A., Gholizadeh, B (2012). The Study of siphon spillway hydraulic - Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(5): 2548-
2553, http://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2012/2548-2553.pdf
[5] Abdulaziz A. Allahamid, 1997. Coefficient of Discharge of Sluice Gate, J. King. Saud University, Eng. Science paper-1, 11 : 33-48.
[6] Bose, M. G., 1989. Hydraulic theory of various hydraulic structures- Discharge Measurement Structures, ILRI, 20, Wageningen.

31 | P a g e
XIII. Appendix
COMPUTATION:
*WITHOUT GATE
Trial 1
= 0.050 m/s
= 0.950 m/s
KPa
= 5.171 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.060 m/s
= 0.950 m/s

32 | P a g e
KPa
= 5.171 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.070 m/s
= 1.067 m/s
KPa
= 5.808 m3/hr
Trial 4

33 | P a g e
= 0.080 m/s
= 1.067 m/s
KPa
= 5.808 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.090 m/s
= 1.138 m/s
KPa
= 6.194 m3/hr
*WITH ONE OPENING
Trial 1

34 | P a g e
= 0.280 m/s
= 1.010 m/s
KPa
= 4.518 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.336 m/s
= 0.970 m/s
KPa
= 4.227 m3/hr

35 | P a g e
Trial 3
= 0.392 m/s
= 0.919 m/s
KPa
= 3.830 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 0.448 m/s
= 0.863 m/s
KPa

36 | P a g e
= 3.389 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.505 m/s
= 0.840 m/s
KPa
= 3.195 m3/hr
*WITH 2 OPENINGS
Trial 1
= 0.140 m/s
= 0.1.103 m/s

37 | P a g e
KPa
= 5.176 m3/hr
Trial 2
= 0.168 m/s
= 1.085 m/s
KPa
= 5.052 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.196 m/s
= 1.076 m/s

38 | P a g e
KPa
= 4.988 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 0.224 m/s
= 1.048 m/s
KPa
= 4.792 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.252 m/s

39 | P a g e
= 1.048 m/s
KPa
= 4.792 m3/hr
*WITH 3 OPENINGS
Trial 1
= 0.093 m/s
= 1.129 m/s
KPa
= 5.358 m3/hr
Trial 2

40 | P a g e
= 0.112 m/s
= 1.084 m/s
KPa
= 5.052 m3/hr
Trial 3
= 0.130 m/s
= 1.084 m/s
KPa

41 | P a g e
= 5.052 m3/hr
Trial 4
= 0.149 m/s
= 1.076 m/s
KPa
= 4.859 m3/hr
Trial 5
= 0.168 m/s
= 1.076 m/s

42 | P a g e
KPa
= 4.859 m3/hr

43 | P a g e

Hydraulics Engineering: Technological Institute of The Philippines 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydraulics Engineering: Technological Institute of The Philippines 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydraulics Engineering 2018

III. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs):

The students shall be able to:

general characteristics of an air regulated siphon (Babaeyan-Koopaei, 2002).

Technological Institute of the Philippines

consistent (Gramatky 1928).

Technological Institute of the Philippines

envisage the Froude number for a known coefficient of discharge.

 Multi-purpose teaching flume

relationship as an application to the single head.

Technological Institute of the Philippines

building to draw straight lines.

4. Set the flow meter needed for the data.

5. Close the ventilation valve.

6. Wait for 15 seconds to get the constant flow of the water.

7. Set the inclination of the teaching flume to 0o.

8. Record the measurements needed for the data.

TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

10. Repeat steps 7-9 for the 3 gates.

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Figure 3.1 Gate1.8with 3 opening

Technological Institute of the Philippines 1cm

Figure 3.2 Gate with 2 opening (18cm x 1.8cm)

Technological Institute of the Philippines 1cm

Figure 3.3 Gate with 1 opening (18cm x 1.80cm)

Computing the Discharge Coefficient of the siphon spillway:

Where: Qin = discharge of the siphon spillway (m 3/s)

C = coefficient of discharge for the siphon

A = cross-section at opening of the siphon (0.084 x 0.165) m 2

g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)

Technological Institute of the Philippines

g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)

Vp = velocity at point p (m2/s)

To compute for Pressure (-) at point b:

Where: Va = Velocity at the opening of the spillway (m 2/s)

g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)

Vp = velocity at point p (m2/s)

P = Negative pressure (Pascal)

Where: Va = Velocity at the opening of the spillway (m 2/s)

Qin = flow meter of the teaching flume (m3/s)

A = Area of the opening of the spillway (m2)

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Computing for Q out:

Where: Qout = discharge of the siphon spillway (m 3/s)

C = coefficient of discharge for the siphon (0.6)

A = cross-section at point p (0.35 x 0.072) m 2

g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)

Vp = velocity at point p (m2/s)

VII. Data and Results

Table 7.1 Data Gathered without a gate:

TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

Table 7.2 Data Gathered for Three Opening:

TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

Table 7.3 Data Gathered for Two Opening:

Technological Institute of the Philippines

TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

Table 7.4 Data Gathered for One Opening:

TRIAL Q in (m 3/hr) H act (m) V a (m/s) V p (m/s) Q out (m 3/hr) P (KPa)

Table 7.5 TRIAL No gate 3 opening 2 opening 1 Opening Discharge

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Figure 7.2 Statistical Analysis of the Data gathered

Technological Institute of the Philippines