International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 10211030 Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_121

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION STEEL VERTICAL

GATES WITH DIFFERENT SYSTEMS
Hanan H. Eltobgy
Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra Benha University, Egypt

Basma H. Mohamed, Eehab A. Khalil

Construction Research Institute, National Water Research Center,
Kannater, Kaloibi, Egypt

ABSTRACT
All types of barrage structures require different types of gates and stop logs to control
flows over sill ways and weirs during operation. Two cases of loading are implemented in the
design of the vertical gates; under water load (operation), and the crane (lifting) conditions.
The main objective of this study is to propose and investigate new systems for the design of
vertical hydraulic gates to make their cost effective. The new proposed system is the
honeycomb structure. The primary advantage of such system is its rigidity from folded plates
and high strength with light weight.
A finite element model of Naga Hammadi stop log vertical left gate using SAP program
(2000-ver 14.2.4-2012) [1] has been developed. The different elements of the lifting gate are
designed with the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method according to the Egyptian Code of
design of buildings and bridges, (ASD). The results obtained from the finite element model
were compared with those obtained from ECP, (2008) [2]. Also A finite element models were
performed to the new proposed systems using Honeycomb sandwich structures with different
types of cores, (square, rhombus and hexagonal) and different sizes for each shape of the
honeycomb core. The three types of sandwich honeycomb stoplog panels provide acceptable
stress results while allowing weight reduction compared with the traditional stoplog panel,
especially the square sandwich honeycomb panel that provided the largest weight reduction.
Key words: Vertical Lift Gate, Stoplog Panel, Honeycomb Sandwich Panel
Cite this Article: Hanan H. Eltobgy, Basma H. Mohamed and Eehab A. Khalil, Analysis of
Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 10211030.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION
Honeycomb as structural system was introduced first in 1940s in aircraft sandwich panel construction,
HexWeb (2000) [3]. The materials used in honeycomb core construction may be metallic or non-
metallic, Aluminium, Nomex (Aramid), Korex, Kevlar, Fibreglass, Carbon, or steel. The honeycomb
sandwich structures have a very wide usage in the last few years as in artificial satellites or aerospace

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1021 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysis of Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems

stations, Dale E.H, et al, (1997) [4], and Yutaka U. et al, (2004) [5]. The honeycomb sandwich
structures are also used in hydrogen storage, Viltaliy M. et al, (2003) [6], and highway bridges
structure, Wahyu L., and Pizhong Q. (2005) [7], because they have a very high rigidity with light
weight. They have a very good behaviour against bending loads, Chun L. et al, (2015) [8]. The
numerical simulation of metallic honeycomb sandwich panel structures under dynamic loads assured
good behaviour using square honeycomb core sandwich panels made from a super-austenitic stainless
steel alloy. The mentioned study was analysed by ABAQUS, Kiumars F. et al, (2015) [9].
Stoplogs are used when it is necessary to carry out maintenance activities, as shown in Figure1. If
the water turbulence occurs at this gate due to water flow through neighbouring gates, the
neighbouring gate shall also be closed during lowering the stoplogs. The water trapped between the
upstream stoplog set and the closed radial gate and the downstream stoplog set shall be pumped out.
The upstream and the downstream stoplogs are raised with the radial gate closed and the space
between them is filled through the by-pass valves installed in each stoplog panel.
In this study,stop logs used in Naga Hamadi Barrage (in Upper Egypt) are investigated
forcomparison between traditional stop log panels and three different core types of sandwich
honeycomb stop log panels.

Figure 1 The upstream and downstream stoplogs under maximum water condition, DSD (2005) [10]

2. METHODOLOGY AND MATERIAL OF NAGA HAMMADI BARRAGE

STOPLOGS
There are two types of stoplogs used in Naga Hamadi Barrage including upstream and downstream
stoplogs for inspection and maintenance of the sluiceway gates and their guide frames, shown in
Figure (2). The upstream stoplog consists of five interchangeable elements and the downstream
stoplog consists of four interchangeable elements provided with two types of panels. The traditional
stoplog were manufactured from steel S 460 with yield stress Fy =460 N/mm and ultimate stress
Fu=570 N/mm, according to EU code (2011) [11].

Figure 2 The upstream and downstream soplogs under balanced condition, DSD (2005) [10]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1022 editor@iaeme.com

 Hanan H. Eltobgy, Basma H. Mohamed and Eehab A. Khalil

2.1. Description of the Stop log Panel System

The stoplog panel is 2.70 m height and is 17.70 m width. It consists of a main 12 mm vertical skin
plate, two 16mm horizontal skin plates, two 25mm flanges, two 15mm vertical intermediate webs, and
other two vertical webs at the right and left end of the panel,20mm vertical stiffeners, and 15mm
horizontal stiffeners, as shown in Figures (3) and (4).

Figure 3 Plan view of stoplog panel, DSD (2005) [10]

Figure 4 Cross section view of stoplog panel, showing the thicknesses of stoplog panel components, DSD
(2005) [10]

3. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL PROCEDURE OF STOPLOGPANEL

3.1. Workability of the Traditional Stoplog Panel
There are two cases of workability depending on the loading condition, Case1, and Case2. In Case1,
the stoplog panel is under water pressure condition, and the weight of upper interchangeable panels. In
this case the supports are informed to the left and the right sides of the panel and they are restrained at
x & y direction only. The supports are also used at the bottom of the panel and they are restrained at z
direction only, as shownin Figure (5). In Case2, the stoplog panel is under crane condition, where the
stoplog panel must be under equilibrium or balanced condition from water, as there are no loads on the
panel. The stoplog is modelled as vertical left gate, as the gate will be under hydrostatic condition
through the second case of loading. So the loads in this case are water pressure on one side of the
interchangeable panel at the surface of the water and the own weight of the interchangeable panel
only, as shown inFigure (6).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1023 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysis of Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems

Figure 5 Downstream Stoplog Panel, Support Condition, under Maximum Water Pressure, Case 1

Figure 6 Downstream Stoplog Panel, Support Condition under Minimum Water Pressure, Case 2

3.1.1. Verification of Traditional Stoplog Panel "Case1"

According to the compactness limits in ECP (2008) [4] Egyptian Code of Practice, the maximum
compressive bending stresses Fbc on the traditional gate must be lower than the allowable stresses as
per Equations, (1), (2), (3), and (4).
For Stiffened element:

58 0.72 (1)

64 0.58 (2)

For Un Stiffened element:

23 0.72 (3)

30 0.58 (4)

Then, the stresses on the gate are lower than the allowable stresses according to the compactness
limits in ECP (2008) [4], as the stress on X (horizontal) direction is 2.87 ton/cm, the stress on Y
(vertical) direction is 2.43 ton/cm, and the weight of the panel is 60 ton, as shown in Figures 7, and 8.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1024 editor@iaeme.com

 Hanan H. Eltobgy, Basma H. Mohamed and Eehab A. Khalil

Figure 7 Max Stress in X (Horizontal) Direction on Stoplog Panel, Case1

Figure 8 Max Stress in Y (Vertical) Direction on Stoplog Panel, Case1

3.1.2. Verification of Traditional Stoplog Panel "Case2"

The stresses in the gate are safe and lower than the allowable stress according to the compactness
limits in ECP (2008) [4], Equations, (1), (2), (3), and (4), the stress on X, (horizontal) direction is 2.74
ton/cm, the stress on Y, (vertical) direction is 2.56 ton/cm, Figures (9), and (10).

Figure 9 Max Stress in X (Horizontal) Direction on Stoplog Panel under Vertical Lift Gate Condition, Case2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1025 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysis of Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems

Figure 10 Max Stress in Y (Vertical) Direction on Stoplog Panel under Vertical Lift Gate Condition, Case2

3.2. Parametric Study of Proposed Stoplog Panels

A proposed sandwich panel with steel core is used in this study as a new system of construction for
stoplog gates based on the advantages of the honeycomb due to its high resistance and lightweight. A
parametric study is presented to investigate the design and behaviour of stoplog gates with different
shapes of honeycomb. A typical sandwich panel consists of two thin, high strength face sheets welded
to the core,as shown in Figure 11. The basic concept of the sandwich panel is to create a structural
element that is equivalent to an I-beam. Normally, the upper and the lower skin plates sustain the
flexure forces and the honeycomb core sustains the shear force.

Upper skin plate

Honeycomb

Lower skin

Figure 11 Layered assembly for honeycomb sandwich panel

3.2.1. Analysis of Honeycombed Steel Gates

Three types of honeycombs cores were studied, namely, square, rhombus, and hexagonal shapes. The
material properties implemented for the honeycomb gates are equivalent to the material properties of
the basic stoplog panel where steel used is: S460 Fy=460 N/mm and Fu=570 N/mm, density = 7849
kg/m, young's modulus = 210 GPA, and Poissonratio=0.3.

3.2.2. Prototype of Numerical Analysis of the Honeycomb Panels

Three different sizes for each shape of the honeycomb core were simulated. For square honeycomb,
size1 (40cm*40cm), size2 (60cm*60cm), size3 (80cm* 80cm).For rhombus honeycomb, size1
(34cm*40cm) diagonally, size2 (51cm*60cm) diagonally, size3 (68cm* 80cm) diagonally,and for
hexagonal honeycomb, size1 (34cm*40cm) diagonally, size2 (51cm*60cm) diagonally, size3 (68cm*
80cm) diagonally.
The numerical analysis was performed in two different steps according to case1 and case2 loading
conditions. Simulation and comparison between the three different sizes for each type of the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1026 editor@iaeme.com

 Hanan H. Eltobgy, Basma H. Mohamed and Eehab A. Khalil

honeycomb stoplog panels at constant 100 cm depth with varied thicknesses of the honeycomb
components including upper skin plate, lower skin plate, and honeycomb core. Further, simulation and
comparison between the three different sizes for each type of the honeycomb stoplog panels at
constant 5mm of the honeycomb core with varied thicknesses of depths of the honeycomb panels and
adding additional stiffeners to acquire the compactness limits in ECP [4].Finally, simulating the
honeycomb stoplogs with varied thicknesses and with varied depths of the honeycomb components
including upper skin plate, lower skin plate, and honeycomb core to acquire the compactness limits in
ECP (2008) [4] with the lowest weight compared to the traditional stoplog panel.
After simulating the stoplog panels with three different sizes for each type of the honeycomb
cores, by the two cases s of loading, the optimum honeycomb sizes assured. These sizes are
(80cm*80cm) for square honeycomb core, (68cm *80cm) diagonally for rhombus honeycomb core,
and (68cm*80cm) for hexagonal honeycomb core.

3.2.3. Analyses of Square Honeycombed Panels with Different Thicknesses and Depths According
to the two Cases of Loading
Size 3 (80cm*80cm) of the square honeycomb core gives stresses lower than the allowable stresses
and the lightest weight compared to the other honeycomb sizes. After changing the thicknesses of the
honeycomb sandwich panel component (horizontally) and increasing the depth of the honeycomb
core, a reduction of about 50% of panel weight is achieved as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Properties and Results of Size3 of Square Honeycomb Panels.

Properties of Upper and lower shin plate thicknesses (mm) 28

honeycomb The honeycomb thickness (mm) 12
panel The depth of the panel (cm) 50
The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 0.530
Size3 Case2 The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 1.664
(80cm*80cm) The weight of the panel (ton) 28.09
The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 2.702
The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 0.830
Case1
The weight of the panel (ton) 28.09
The percentage of weight reduction % 53.18

3.2.4. Analyses of Rhombus Honeycombed Panels with Different Thicknesses and Depths
According to the two Cases of Loading
Size 3 (68cm*80cm diagonally) of the rhombus honeycomb core gives stresses lower than the
allowable stresses and the lightest weight compared to the other sizes. Changing thicknesses of the
honeycomb sandwich panel component (horizontally) and increasing the depth of the honeycomb
core, a reduction of about 40% of panel weight is achieved as shown in Table 2.

3.2.5. Analyses of Hexagonal Honeycombed Panels with Different Thicknesses and Depths
According to the two Cases of Loading
Size 3 (68cm*80cm diagonally) of the hexagonal honeycomb core gives stresses lower than the
allowable stresses and the lightest weight compared to the other sizes. After changing the honeycomb
sandwich panel component thicknesses (horizontally) and increasing the depth of the honeycomb core,
light weight and low stresses are resulted. A reduction of about 30% of panel weight is achieved as
shown in Table 3.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1027 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysis of Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems

Table 2 Properties and Results of Size3 of Rhombus Honeycomb Panels

Properties of Upper and lower shin plate thicknesses (mm) 28

honeycomb The honeycomb thickness (mm) 12
panel The depth of the panel (cm) 70
The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 0.517
Size3 Case2 The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 1.299
(68cm*80cm The weight of the panel (ton) 35.88
diagonally)
The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 2.397
The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 1.684
Case1
The weight of the panel (ton) 35.88
The percentage of weight increment % 40.20

Table 3 Properties and Results of Size3 of Hexagonal Honeycomb Panels

The original upper and lower shin plates
28
thicknesses (mm)
Properties of The modified upper and lower shin plates
honeycomb 32
thicknesses (mm)
panel
The honeycomb thickness (mm) 16
Size3 The depth of the panel (cm) 100
(68cm*80cm The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 0.459
diagonally) Case2 The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 0.966
The weight of the panel (ton) 43.72
The stress in X direction (ton/cm) 0.733
The stress in Y direction (ton/cm) 1.785
Case1
The weight of the panel (ton) 43.72
The percentage of weight reduction % 27.13

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The honeycomb panels' simulation resulted in stresses lower than the allowable stresses according to
ECP (2008) [4] design methodology. The weight was lighter than the weight of the traditional stoplog
panel, as shown in Figures 12, 13, and 14.

Figure 12 Hoizontal stress stoplog panels

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1028 editor@iaeme.com

 Hanan H. Eltobgy, Basma H. Mohamed and Eehab A. Khalil

Figure 13 Vertical stress stoplog panels

Figure 14 The weight difference between stoplog panels

5. CONCLUSION
From the analysis performed on the traditional stoplog panel and the sandwich honeycomb panels, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. The traditional stoplog panel is safe according to the first case of loading (under maximum water
condition), as the stresses are lower than the allowable stress according to ECP (2008) [4]
methodology with weight about 60 ton.
2. In the second case of loading, the traditional stoplog under balanced condition is safe as the stresses
are lower than the allowable stresses. The traditional stoplog is treated as a vertical lift gate panel and
capable of sustaining 2.7 ton/m2 water pressure.
3. For the square sandwich honeycomb panel using varied depths and thicknesses of the honeycomb
panel components according to case1 and case2of loading conditions, square honeycomb panel gave
accepted stress results, as the stresses are lower than the allowable stresses, a reduction of about 50%
of panel weight is achieved compared to the traditional stoplog panel.
4. For the rhombus sandwich honeycomb panel using varied depths and thicknesses of the honeycomb
panel components, rhombus honeycomb panel gave accepted results, as the stresses are lower than the
allowable stresses, and the weight reduction of about 40% is achieved compared to the traditional
stoplog panel.
5. For the hexagonal sandwich honeycomb panel using varied depths and thicknesses of the
honeycomb panel components, hexagonal honeycomb panel gave accepted stress results, as the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1029 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysis of Irrigation Steel Vertical Gates with Different Systems

stresses are lower than the allowable stresses, and the weight reduction of about 30%is achieved
compared to the traditional stoplog panel.
In conclusion, all the three types of sandwich honeycomb stoplog panels would provide acceptable
stress results while allowing weight reduction compared with the traditional stoplog panel. The square
sandwich honeycomb panel would provide the largest reduction in weight.

REFERENCES
[1] SAP2000, Version Advanced 14.2.4,Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, 2010.
[2] ECP, Egyptian Code of Practice for Steel Construction and Bridges (Allowable Stress Design),
Ministry of housing, utilitiesand urban development code no.ECP 205-2001, 2008.
[3] HexWeb TM, Honeycomb Sandwich Design Technology, Publication No.AGU 075b,Hexcel
Composites, Duxford, United Kingdom, 2000.
[4] Dale E.Hartz, David G.Erickson, William B.Hopkins, and Christopher L.Pederson, Composite
Honeycomb Sandwich Structure with Resin Flow, Publication No US 1997/ 5,604,010, United
States Patent Application Publication, 1997.
[5] Yutaka Ueda, Masaki Morinaka, Makoto Chujo, Tadashi Torigoe, Makiko Lida, and Kazuyuki
Tamada, Honeycomb Sandwich Structure Made of a Phenolic Resin as a matrix, Publication No US
2004/ 6,743,497 B2 , United States Patent Application Publication, 2004.
[6] Viltaliy Myasnikov, Baoquan Huang, Rosa Young, Stanford R.Ovshinsky, Honeycomb Hydrogen
Storage Structures, Publication No US 2003/ 0209149 A1, United States Patent Application
Publication, 2003.
[7] Wahyu Lestari, and Pizhong Qiao, Damage Detection of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Honeycomb
Sandwich Beams, Journal of Composite Structures 67, 2005 pp. 365-373.
[8] Chun Lu, Mingyue Zhao, Liu Jie, Jing Wang, Yu Gao, Xu Cui, and Ping Chen, Stress Distribution
on Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Structure Suffered from Bending Load, Procedia Engineering
99, 2015.pp. 405 412.
[9] Kiumars Farhadi, Amir Afkar, and Majid Nouri Kamari, (2015) "Numerical Simulation of Metallic
Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Structures Under Dynamic Loads " Procedia Engineering 6 (7),
2015,pp. 2013-2020.
[10] DSD, New Naga Hammadi Barrage, Hydropower Plant, Sluiceway Equipment, and Stoplogs,
Operation and Maintenance Manual, 2005.
[11] EU, European Statistics Code of Practice, The National and Community Statistical Authorities,
European statistical system Committee, September 2011.
[12] Mathivanan Periasamy, Behavior of Tensile, Flexural and Interlaminar Shear Strength of
Microfilled Aluminium-Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sandwich Panels, International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 604608.
[13] Sathishkumar.S, A.V.Suresh, S.C.Sharma and Radha. H .R, Drill Ability Studies of Jute Fibre
Reinforced Plastic Sandwich Structure Using Doe and Anova in Various Surrounding Condition.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), 5(1), 2014,
pp.19

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1030 editor@iaeme.com