Mahmood, Ahmed Hussein
Water Supply (2021) 21 (3): 1344–1355.
Spillways are constructed to evacuate flood discharge safely so that a flood wave does not overtop the dam body. There are different types of spillways, with the ogee type being the conventional one. A stepped spillway is an example of a nonconventional spillway. The turbulent flow over a stepped spillway was studied numerically by using the Flow-3D package. Different fluid flow characteristics such as longitudinal flow velocity, temperature distribution, density and chemical concentration can be well simulated by Flow-3D. In this study, the influence of slope changes on flow characteristics such as air entrainment, velocity distribution and dynamic pressures distribution over a stepped spillway was modelled by Flow-3D. The results from the numerical model were compared with an experimental study done by others in the literature. Two models of a stepped spillway with different discharge for each model were simulated. The turbulent flow in the experimental model was simulated by the Renormalized Group (RNG) turbulence scheme in the numerical model. A good agreement was achieved between the numerical results and the observed ones, which are exhibited in terms of graphics and statistical tables.
배수로는 홍수가 댐 몸체 위로 넘치지 않도록 안전하게 홍수를 피할 수 있도록 건설되었습니다. 다른 유형의 배수로가 있으며, ogee 유형이 기존 유형입니다. 계단식 배수로는 비 전통적인 배수로의 예입니다. 계단식 배수로 위의 난류는 Flow-3D 패키지를 사용하여 수치적으로 연구되었습니다.
세로 유속, 온도 분포, 밀도 및 화학 농도와 같은 다양한 유체 흐름 특성은 Flow-3D로 잘 시뮬레이션 할 수 있습니다. 이 연구에서는 계단식 배수로에 대한 공기 혼입, 속도 분포 및 동적 압력 분포와 같은 유동 특성에 대한 경사 변화의 영향을 Flow-3D로 모델링 했습니다.
수치 모델의 결과는 문헌에서 다른 사람들이 수행한 실험 연구와 비교되었습니다. 각 모델에 대해 서로 다른 배출이 있는 계단식 배수로의 두 모델이 시뮬레이션되었습니다. 실험 모델의 난류 흐름은 수치 모델의 Renormalized Group (RNG) 난류 계획에 의해 시뮬레이션되었습니다. 수치 결과와 관찰 된 결과 사이에 좋은 일치가 이루어졌으며, 이는 그래픽 및 통계 테이블로 표시됩니다.
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
- A numerical model was developed for stepped spillways.
- The turbulent flow was simulated by the Renormalized Group (RNG) model.
- Both numerical and experimental results showed that flow characteristics are greatly affected by abrupt slope change on the steps.
CFD, numerical modelling, slope change, stepped spillway, turbulent flow
댐 구조는 물 보호가 생활의 핵심이기 때문에 물을 저장하거나 물을 운반하는 전 세계에서 가장 중요한 프로젝트입니다. 그리고 여수로는 댐의 가장 중요한 부분 중 하나로 분류됩니다. 홍수로 인한 파괴 나 피해로부터 댐을 보호하기 위해 여수로가 건설됩니다.
수력 발전, 항해, 레크리에이션 및 어업의 중요성을 감안할 때 댐 건설 및 홍수 통제는 전 세계적으로 매우 중요한 문제로 간주 될 수 있습니다. 많은 유형의 배수로가 있지만 가장 일반적인 유형은 다음과 같습니다 : ogee 배수로, 자유 낙하 배수로, 사이펀 배수로, 슈트 배수로, 측면 채널 배수로, 터널 배수로, 샤프트 배수로 및 계단식 배수로.
그리고 모든 여수로는 입구 채널, 제어 구조, 배출 캐리어 및 출구 채널의 네 가지 필수 구성 요소로 구성됩니다. 특히 롤러 압축 콘크리트 (RCC) 댐 건설 기술과 더 쉽고 빠르며 저렴한 건설 기술로 분류 된 계단식 배수로 건설과 관련하여 최근 수십 년 동안 많은 계단식 배수로가 건설되었습니다 (Chanson 2002; Felder & Chanson 2011).
계단식 배수로 구조는 캐비테이션 위험을 감소시키는 에너지 소산 속도를 증가시킵니다 (Boes & Hager 2003b). 계단식 배수로는 다양한 조건에서 더 매력적으로 만드는 장점이 있습니다.
계단식 배수로의 흐름 거동은 일반적으로 낮잠, 천이 및 스키밍 흐름 체제의 세 가지 다른 영역으로 분류됩니다 (Chanson 2002). 유속이 낮을 때 nappe 흐름 체제가 발생하고 자유 낙하하는 낮잠의 시퀀스로 특징 지워지는 반면, 스키밍 흐름 체제에서는 물이 외부 계단 가장자리 위의 유사 바닥에서 일관된 흐름으로 계단 위로 흐릅니다.
또한 주요 흐름에서 3 차원 재순환 소용돌이가 발생한다는 것도 분명합니다 (예 : Chanson 2002; Gonzalez & Chanson 2008). 계단 가장자리 근처의 의사 바닥에서 흐름의 방향은 가상 바닥과 가상으로 정렬됩니다. Takahashi & Ohtsu (2012)에 따르면, 스키밍 흐름 체제에서 주어진 유속에 대해 흐름은 계단 가장자리 근처의 수평 계단면에 영향을 미치고 슈트 경사가 감소하면 충돌 영역의 면적이 증가합니다. 전이 흐름 체제는 나페 흐름과 스키밍 흐름 체제 사이에서 발생합니다. 계단식 배수로를 설계 할 때 스키밍 흐름 체계를 고려해야합니다 (예 : Chanson 1994, Matos 2000, Chanson 2002, Boes & Hager 2003a).
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics), 즉 수력 공학의 수치 모델은 일반적으로 물리적 모델에 소요되는 총 비용과 시간을 줄여줍니다. 따라서 수치 모델은 실험 모델보다 빠르고 저렴한 것으로 분류되며 동시에 하나 이상의 목적으로 사용될 수도 있습니다. 사용 가능한 많은 CFD 소프트웨어 패키지가 있지만 가장 널리 사용되는 것은 FLOW-3D입니다. 이 연구에서는 Flow 3D 소프트웨어를 사용하여 유량이 서로 다른 두 모델에 대해 계단식 배수로에서 공기 농도, 속도 분포 및 동적 압력 분포를 시뮬레이션합니다.
Roshan et al. (2010)은 서로 다른 수의 계단 및 배출을 가진 계단식 배수로의 두 가지 물리적 모델에 대한 흐름 체제 및 에너지 소산 조사를 연구했습니다. 실험 모델의 기울기는 각각 19.2 %, 12 단계와 23 단계의 수입니다. 결과는 23 단계 물리적 모델에서 관찰 된 흐름 영역이 12 단계 모델보다 더 수용 가능한 것으로 간주되었음을 보여줍니다. 그러나 12 단계 모델의 에너지 손실은 23 단계 모델보다 더 많았습니다. 그리고 실험은 스키밍 흐름 체제에서 23 단계 모델의 에너지 소산이 12 단계 모델보다 약 12 % 더 적다는 것을 관찰했습니다.
Ghaderi et al. (2020a)는 계단 크기와 유속이 다른 정련 매개 변수의 영향을 조사하기 위해 계단식 배수로에 대한 실험 연구를 수행했습니다. 그 결과, 흐름 체계가 냅페 흐름 체계에서 발생하는 최소 scouring 깊이와 같은 scouring 구멍 치수에 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여주었습니다. 또한 테일 워터 깊이와 계단 크기는 최대 scouring깊이에 대한 실제 매개 변수입니다. 테일 워터의 깊이를 6.31cm에서 8.54 및 11.82cm로 늘림으로써 수세 깊이가 각각 18.56 % 및 11.42 % 증가했습니다. 또한 이 증가하는 테일 워터 깊이는 scouring 길이를 각각 31.43 % 및 16.55 % 감소 시킵니다. 또한 유속을 높이면 Froude 수가 증가하고 흐름의 운동량이 증가하면 scouring이 촉진됩니다. 또한 결과는 중간의 scouring이 횡단면의 측벽보다 적다는 것을 나타냅니다. 계단식 배수로 하류의 최대 scouring 깊이를 예측 한 후 실험 결과와 비교하기 위한 실험식이 제안 되었습니다. 그리고 비교 결과 제안 된 공식은 각각 3.86 %와 9.31 %의 상대 오차와 최대 오차 내에서 scouring 깊이를 예측할 수 있음을 보여주었습니다.
Ghaderi et al. (2020b)는 사다리꼴 미로 모양 (TLS) 단계의 수치 조사를 했습니다. 결과는 이러한 유형의 배수로가 확대 비율 LT / Wt (LT는 총 가장자리 길이, Wt는 배수로의 폭)를 증가시키기 때문에 더 나은 성능을 갖는 것으로 관찰되었습니다. 또한 사다리꼴 미로 모양의 계단식 배수로는 더 큰 마찰 계수와 더 낮은 잔류 수두를 가지고 있습니다. 마찰 계수는 다양한 배율에 대해 0.79에서 1.33까지 다르며 평평한 계단식 배수로의 경우 대략 0.66과 같습니다. 또한 TLS 계단식 배수로에서 잔류 수두의 비율 (Hres / dc)은 약 2.89이고 평평한 계단식 배수로의 경우 약 4.32와 같습니다.
Shahheydari et al. (2015)는 Flow-3D 소프트웨어, RNG k-ε 모델 및 VOF (Volume of Fluid) 방법을 사용하여 배출 계수 및 에너지 소산과 같은 자유 표면 흐름의 프로파일을 연구하여 스키밍 흐름 체제에서 계단식 배수로에 대한 흐름을 조사했습니다. 실험 결과와 비교했습니다. 결과는 에너지 소산 율과 방전 계수율의 관계가 역으로 실험 모델의 결과와 잘 일치 함을 보여 주었다.
Mohammad Rezapour Tabari & Tavakoli (2016)는 계단 높이 (h), 계단 길이 (L), 계단 수 (Ns) 및 단위 폭의 방전 (q)과 같은 다양한 매개 변수가 계단식 에너지 소산에 미치는 영향을 조사했습니다. 방수로. 그들은 해석에 FLOW-3D 소프트웨어를 사용하여 계단식 배수로에서 에너지 손실과 임계 흐름 깊이 사이의 관계를 평가했습니다. 또한 유동 난류에 사용되는 방정식과 표준 k-ɛ 모델을 풀기 위해 유한 체적 방법을 적용했습니다. 결과에 따르면 스텝 수가 증가하고 유량 배출량이 증가하면 에너지 손실이 감소합니다. 얻은 결과를 다른 연구와 비교하고 경험적, 수학적 조사를 수행하여 결국 합격 가능한 결과를 얻었습니다.
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: ListenFor all numerical models the basic principle is very similar: a set of partial differential equations (PDE) present the physical problems. The flow of fluids (gas and liquid) are governed by the conservation laws of mass, momentum and energy. For Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), the PDE system is substituted by a set of algebraic equations which can be worked out by using numerical methods (Versteeg & Malalasekera 2007). Flow-3D uses the finite volume approach to solve the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation, by applying the technique of Fractional Area/Volume Obstacle Representation (FAVOR) to define an obstacle (Flow Science Inc. 2012). Equations (1) and (2) are RANS and continuity equations with FAVOR variables that are applied for incompressible flows.
(2)where is the velocity in xi direction, t is the time, is the fractional area open to flow in the subscript directions, is the volume fraction of fluid in each cell, p is the hydrostatic pressure, is the density, is the gravitational force in subscript directions and is the Reynolds stresses.
Turbulence modelling is one of three key elements in CFD (Gunal 1996). There are many types of turbulence models, but the most common are Zero-equation models, One-equation models, Two-equation models, Reynolds Stress/Flux models and Algebraic Stress/Flux models. In FLOW-3D software, five turbulence models are available. The formulation used in the FLOW-3D software differs slightly from other formulations that includes the influence of the fractional areas/volumes of the FAVORTM method and generalizes the turbulence production (or decay) associated with buoyancy forces. The latter generalization, for example, includes buoyancy effects associated with non-inertial accelerations.
The available turbulence models in Flow-3D software are the Prandtl Mixing Length Model, the One-Equation Turbulent Energy Model, the Two-Equation Standard Model, the Two-Equation Renormalization-Group (RNG) Model and large Eddy Simulation Model (Flow Science Inc. 2012).In this research the RNG model was selected because this model is more commonly used than other models in dealing with particles; moreover, it is more accurate to work with air entrainment and other particles. In general, the RNG model is classified as a more widely-used application than the standard k-ɛ model. And in particular, the RNG model is more accurate in flows that have strong shear regions than the standard k-ɛ model and it is defined to describe low intensity turbulent flows. For the turbulent dissipation it solves an additional transport equation:
(3)where CDIS1, CDIS2, and CDIS3 are dimensionless parameters and the user can modify them. The diffusion of dissipation, Diff ɛ, is
(4)where u, v and w are the x, y and z coordinates of the fluid velocity; , , and , are FLOW-3D’s FAVORTM defined terms; and are turbulence due to shearing and buoyancy effects, respectively. R and are related to the cylindrical coordinate system. The default values of RMTKE, CDIS1 and CNU differ, being 1.39, 1.42 and 0.085 respectively. And CDIS2 is calculated from turbulent production () and turbulent kinetic energy ().The kinematic turbulent viscosity is the same in all turbulence transport models and is calculated from
(5)where : is the turbulent kinematic viscosity. is defined as the numerical challenge between the RNG and the two-equation k-ɛ models, found in the equation below. To avoid an unphysically large result for in Equation (3), since this equation could produce a value for very close to zero and also because the physical value of may approach to zero in such cases, the value of is calculated from the following equation:
(6)where : the turbulent length scale.
VOF and FAVOR are classifications of volume-fraction methods. In these two methods, firstly the area should be subdivided into a control volume grid or a small element. Each flow parameter like velocity, temperature and pressure values within the element are computed for each element containing liquids. Generally, these values represent the volumetric average of values in the elements.Numerous methods have been used recently to solve free infinite boundaries in the various numerical simulations. VOF is an easy and powerful method created based on the concept of a fractional intensity of fluid. A significant number of studies have confirmed that this method is more flexible and efficient than others dealing with the configurations of a complex free boundary. By using VOF technology the Flow-3D free surface was modelled and first declared in Hirt & Nichols (1981). In the VOF method there are three ingredients: a planner to define the surface, an algorithm for tracking the surface as a net mediator moving over a computational grid, and application of the boundary conditions to the surface. Configurations of the fluids are defined in terms of VOF function, F (x, y, z, t) (Hirt & Nichols 1981). And this VOF function shows the volume of flow per unit volume
(9)where is the density of the fluid, is a turbulent diffusion term, is a mass source, is the fractional volume open to flow. The components of velocity (u, v, w) are in the direction of coordinates (x, y, z) or (r, ). in the x-direction is the fractional area open to flow, and are identical area fractions for flow in the y and z directions. The R coefficient is based on the selection of the coordinate system.
The FAVOR method is a different method and uses another volume fraction technique, which is only used to define the geometry, such as the volume of liquid in each cell used to determine the position of fluid surfaces. Another fractional volume can be used to define the solid surface. Then, this information is used to determine the boundary conditions of the wall that the flow should be adapted for.
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
In this study, the experimental results of Ostad Mirza (2016) was simulated. In a channel composed of two 4 m long modules, with a transparent sidewall of height 0.6 m and 0.5 m width. The upstream chute slope (i.e. pseudo-bottom angle) Ɵ1 = 50°, the downstream chute slope Ɵ2 = 30° or 18.6°, the step heights h = 0.06 m, the total number of steps along the 50° chute 41 steps, the total number of steps along the 30° chute 34 steps and the total number of steps along the 18.6° chute 20 steps.
The flume inflow tool contained a jetbox with a maximum opening set to 0.12 meters, designed for passing the maximum unit discharge of 0.48 m2/s. The measurements of the flow properties (i.e. air concentration and velocity) were computed perpendicular to the pseudo-bottom as shown in Figure 1 at the centre of twenty stream-wise cross-sections, along the stepped chute, (i.e. in five steps up on the slope change and fifteen steps down on the slope change, namely from step number −09 to +23 on 50°–30° slope change, or from −09 to +15 on 50°–18.6° slope change, respectively).
Sketch of the air concentration C and velocity V measured perpendicular to the pseudo-bottom used by Mirza (Ostad Mirza 2016).
Pressure sensors were arranged with the x/l values for different slope change as shown in Table 1, where x is the distance from the step edge, along the horizontal step face, and l is the length of the horizontal step face. The location of pressure sensors is shown in Table 1.Table 1
Location of pressure sensors on horizontal step faces
Inlet boundary condition for Q = 0.235 m3/s and fluid elevation 4.21834 m.
Numerical model set-up
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
A 3D numerical model of hydraulic phenomena was simulated based on an experimental study by Ostad Mirza (2016). The water surcharge and flow pressure over the stepped spillway was computed for two models of a stepped spillway with different discharge for each model. In this study, the package was used to simulate the flow parameters such as air entrainment, velocity distribution and dynamic pressures. The solver uses the finite volume technique to discretize the computational domain. In every test run, one incompressible fluid flow with a free surface flow selected at 20̊ was used for this simulation model. Table 2 shows the variables used in test runs.Table 2
Variables used in test runs
|Test no.||Θ1 (°)||Θ2 (°)||h(m)||d0||q (m3s−1)||dc/h (–)|
For stepped spillway simulation, several parameters should be specified to get accurate simulations, which is the scope of this research. Viscosity and turbulent, gravity and non-inertial reference frame, air entrainment, density evaluation and drift-flux should be activated for these simulations. There are five different choices in the ‘viscosity and turbulent’ option, in the viscosity flow and Renormalized Group (RNG) model. Then a dynamical model is selected as the second option, the ‘gravity and non-inertial reference frame’. Only the z-component was inputted as a negative 9.81 m/s2 and this value represents gravitational acceleration but in the same option the x and y components will be zero. Air entrainment is selected. Finally, in the drift-flux model, the density of phase one is input as (water) 1,000 kg/m3 and the density of phase two (air) as 1.225 kg/m3. Minimum volume fraction of phase one is input equal to 0.1 and maximum volume fraction of phase two to 1 to allow air concentration to reach 90%, then the option allowing gas to escape at free surface is selected, to obtain closer simulation.
The flow domain is divided into small regions relatively by the mesh in Flow-3D numerical model. Cells are the smallest part of the mesh, in which flow characteristics such as air concentration, velocity and dynamic pressure are calculated. The accuracy of the results and simulation time depends directly on the mesh block size so the cell size is very important. Orthogonal mesh was used in cartesian coordinate systems. A smaller cell size provides more accuracy for results, so we reduced the number of cells whilst including enough accuracy. In this study, the size of cells in x, y and z directions was selected as 0.015 m after several trials.
Figure 3 shows the 3D computational domain model 50–18.6 slope change, that is 6.0 m length, 0.50 m width and 4.23 m height. The 3D model of the computational domain model 50–30 slope changes this to 6.0 m length, 0.50 m width and 5.068 m height and the size of meshes in x, y, and z directions are 0.015 m. For the 50–18.6 slope change model: both total number of active and passive cells = 4,009,952, total number of active cells = 3,352,307, include real cells (used for solving the flow equations) = 3,316,269, open real cells = 3,316,269, fully blocked real cells equal to zero, external boundary cells were 36,038, inter-block boundary cells = 0 (Flow-3D report). For 50–30 slope change model: both total number of active and passive cells = 4,760,002, total number of active cells equal to 4,272,109, including real cells (used for solving the flow equations) were 3,990,878, open real cells = 3,990,878 fully blocked real cells = zero, external boundary cells were 281,231, inter-block boundary cells = 0 (Flow-3D report).
Figure 3VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
The 3D computational domain model (50–18.6) slope change, and boundary condition for (50–30 slope change) model.
When solving the Navier-Stokes equation and continuous equations, boundary conditions should be applied. The most important work of boundary conditions is to create flow conditions similar to physical status. The Flow-3D software has many types of boundary condition; each type can be used for the specific condition of the models. The boundary conditions in Flow-3D are symmetry, continuative, specific pressure, grid overlay, wave, wall, periodic, specific velocity, outflow, and volume flow rate.
There are two options to input finite flow rate in the Flow-3D software either for inlet discharge of the system or for the outlet discharge of the domain: specified velocity and volume flow rate. In this research, the X-minimum boundary condition, volume flow rate, has been chosen. For X-maximum boundary condition, outflow was selected because there is nothing to be calculated at the end of the flume. The volume flow rate and the elevation of surface water was set for Q = 0.1 and 0.235 m3/s respectively (Figure 2).
The bottom (Z-min) is prepared as a wall boundary condition and the top (Z-max) is computed as a pressure boundary condition, and for both (Y-min) and (Y-max) as symmetry.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
The air concentration distribution profiles in two models of stepped spillway were obtained at an acquisition time equal to 25 seconds in skimming flow for both upstream and downstream of a slope change 50°–18.6° and 50°–30° for different discharge as in Table 2, and as shown in Figure 4 for 50°–18.6° slope change and Figure 5 for 50°–30° slope change configuration for dc/h = 4.6. The simulation results of the air concentration are very close to the experimental results in all curves and fairly close to that predicted by the advection-diffusion model for the air bubbles suggested by Chanson (1997) on a constant sloping chute.
Figure 4VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Experimental and simulated air concentration distribution for steps number −5, +1, +5, +8, +11 and +15 along the 50°–18.6° slope change for dc/h = 4.6.
Figure 5VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Experimental and simulated air concentration distribution for steps number −5, +1, +5, +11, +19 and +22 along the 50°–30° slope change, for dc/h = 4.6.
Figure 6VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Experimental and simulated dimensionless velocity distribution for steps number −5, −1, +1, +5, +8, +11 and +15 along the 50°–18.6° slope change for dc/h = 2.6.
Figure 7VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Experimental and simulated dimensionless velocity distribution for steps number −5, −1, +1, +5. +11, +15 and +22 along the 50°–30° slope change for dc/h = 2.6.
But as is shown in all above mentioned figures it is clear that at the pseudo-bottom the CFD results of air concentration are less than experimental ones until the depth of water reaches a quarter of the total depth of water. Also the direction of the curves are parallel to each other when going up towards the surface water and are incorporated approximately near the surface water. For all curves, the cross-section is separate between upstream and downstream steps. Therefore the (-) sign for steps represents a step upstream of the slope change cross-section and the (+) sign represents a step downstream of the slope change cross-section.
The dimensionless velocity distribution (V/V90) profile was acquired at an acquisition time equal to 25 seconds in skimming flow of the upstream and downstream slope change for both 50°–18.6° and 50°–30° slope change. The simulation results are compared with the experimental ones showing that for all curves there is close similarity for each point between the observed and experimental results. The curves increase parallel to each other and they merge near at the surface water as shown in Figure 6 for slope change 50°–18.6° configuration and Figure 7 for slope change 50°–30° configuration. However, at step numbers +1 and +5 in Figure 7 there are few differences between the simulated and observed results, namely the simulation curves ascend regularly meaning the velocity increases regularly from the pseudo-bottom up to the surface water.
Figure 8 (50°–18.6° slope change) and Figure 9 (50°–30° slope change) compare the simulation results and the experimental results for the presented dimensionless dynamic pressure distribution for different points on the stepped spillway. The results show a good agreement with the experimental and numerical simulations in all curves. For some points, few discrepancies can be noted in pressure magnitudes between the simulated and the observed ones, but they are in the acceptable range. Although the experimental data do not completely agree with the simulated results, there is an overall agreement.
Figure 8VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Comparison between simulated and experimental results for the dimensionless pressure for steps number −1, −2, −3 and +1, +2 +3 and +20 on the horizontal step faces of 50°–18.6° slope change configuration, for dc/h = 4.6, x is the distance from the step edge.
Figure 9VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Comparison between simulated and experimental results for the dimensionless pressure for steps number −1, −2, −3 and +1, +2 and +30, +31 on the horizontal step face of 50°–30° slope change configuration, for dc/h = 4.6, x is the distance from the step edge.
The pressure profiles were acquired at an acquisition time equal to 70 seconds in skimming flow on 50°–18.6°, where p is the measured dynamic pressure, h is step height and ϒ is water specific weight. A negative sign for steps represents a step upstream of the slope change cross-section and a positive sign represents a step downstream of the slope change cross-section.
Figure 10 shows the experimental streamwise development of dimensionless pressure on the 50°–18.6° slope change for dc/h = 4.6, x/l = 0.35 on 50° sloping chute and x/l = 0.3 on 18.6° sloping chute compared with the numerical simulation. It is obvious from Figure 10 that the streamwise development of dimensionless pressure before slope change (steps number −1, −2 and −3) both of the experimental and simulated results are close to each other. However, it is clear that there is a little difference between the results of the streamwise development of dimensionless pressure at step numbers +1, +2 and +3. Moreover, from step number +3 to the end, the curves get close to each other.
Figure 10VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Comparison between experimental and simulated results for the streamwise development of the dimensionless pressure on the 50°–18.6° slope change, for dc/h = 4.6, and x/l = 0.35 on 50° sloping chute and x/l = 0.3 on 18.6° sloping chute.
Figure 11 compares the experimental and the numerical results for the streamwise development of the dimensionless pressure on the 50°–30° slope change, for dc/h = 4.6, and x/l = 0.35 on 50° sloping chute and x/l = 0.17 on 30° sloping chute. It is apparent that the outcomes of the experimental work are close to the numerical results, however, the results of the simulation are above the experimental ones before the slope change, but the results of the simulation descend below the experimental ones after the slope change till the end.
Figure 11VIEW LARGEDOWNLOAD SLIDE
Comparison between experimental and simulated results for the streamwise development of the dimensionless pressure on the 50°–30° slope change, for dc/h = 4.6, and x/l = 0.35 on 50° sloping chute and x/l = 0.17 on 30° sloping chute.
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
In this research, numerical modelling was attempted to investigate the effect of abrupt slope change on the flow properties (air entrainment, velocity distribution and dynamic pressure) over a stepped spillway with two different models and various flow rates in a skimming flow regime by using the CFD technique. The numerical model was verified and compared with the experimental results of Ostad Mirza (2016). The same domain of the numerical model was inputted as in experimental models to reduce errors as much as possible.
Flow-3D is a well modelled tool that deals with particles. In this research, the model deals well with air entrainment particles by observing their results with experimental results. And the reason for the small difference between the numerical and the experimental results is that the program deals with particles more accurately than the laboratory. In general, both numerical and experimental results showed that near to the slope change the flow bulking, air entrainment, velocity distribution and dynamic pressure are greatly affected by abrupt slope change on the steps. Although the extent of the slope change was relatively small, the influence of the slope change was major on flow characteristics.
The Renormalized Group (RNG) model was selected as a turbulence solver. For 3D modelling, orthogonal mesh was used as a computational domain and the mesh grid size used for X, Y, and Z direction was equal to 0.015 m. In CFD modelling, air concentration and velocity distribution were recorded for a period of 25 seconds, but dynamic pressure was recorded for a period of 70 seconds. The results showed that there is a good agreement between the numerical and the physical models. So, it can be concluded that the proposed CFD model is very suitable for use in simulating and analysing the design of hydraulic structures.
이 연구에서 수치 모델링은 두 가지 다른 모델과 다양한 유속을 사용하여 스키밍 흐름 영역에서 계단식 배수로에 대한 유동 특성 (공기 혼입, 속도 분포 및 동적 압력)에 대한 급격한 경사 변화의 영향을 조사하기 위해 시도되었습니다. CFD 기술. 수치 모델을 검증하여 Ostad Mirza (2016)의 실험 결과와 비교 하였다. 오차를 최대한 줄이기 위해 실험 모형과 동일한 수치 모형을 입력 하였다.
Flow-3D는 파티클을 다루는 잘 모델링 된 도구입니다. 이 연구에서 모델은 실험 결과를 통해 결과를 관찰하여 공기 혼입 입자를 잘 처리합니다. 그리고 수치와 실험 결과의 차이가 작은 이유는 프로그램이 실험실보다 입자를 더 정확하게 다루기 때문입니다. 일반적으로 수치 및 실험 결과는 경사에 가까워지면 유동 벌킹, 공기 혼입, 속도 분포 및 동적 압력이 계단의 급격한 경사 변화에 크게 영향을받는 것으로 나타났습니다. 사면 변화의 정도는 상대적으로 작았지만 사면 변화의 영향은 유동 특성에 큰 영향을 미쳤다.
Renormalized Group (RNG) 모델이 난류 솔버로 선택되었습니다. 3D 모델링의 경우 계산 영역으로 직교 메쉬가 사용되었으며 X, Y, Z 방향에 사용 된 메쉬 그리드 크기는 0.015m입니다. CFD 모델링에서 공기 농도와 속도 분포는 25 초 동안 기록되었지만 동적 압력은 70 초 동안 기록되었습니다. 결과는 수치 모델과 물리적 모델간에 좋은 일치가 있음을 보여줍니다. 따라서 제안 된 CFD 모델은 수력 구조물의 설계 시뮬레이션 및 해석에 매우 적합하다는 결론을 내릴 수 있습니다.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
ListenReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.
Boes R. M. Hager W. H. 2003a Hydraulic design of stepped spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129 (9), 671–679.
Boes R. M. Hager W. H. 2003b Two-Phase flow characteristics of stepped spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129 (9), 661–670.
Chanson H. 1994 Hydraulics of skimming flows over stepped channels and spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Research 32 (3), 445–460.
Chanson H. 1997 Air Bubble Entrainment in Free Surface Turbulent Shear Flows. Academic Press, London.
Chanson H. 2002 The Hydraulics of Stepped Chutes and Spillways. Balkema, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Felder S. Chanson H. 2011 Energy dissipation down a stepped spillway with nonuniform step heights. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 137 (11), 1543–1548.
Flow Science, Inc. 2012 FLOW-3D v10-1 User Manual. Flow Science, Inc., Santa Fe, CA.
Ghaderi A. Daneshfaraz R. Torabi M. Abraham J. Azamathulla H. M. 2020a Experimental investigation on effective scouring parameters downstream from stepped spillways. Water Supply 20 (5), 1988–1998.
Ghaderi A. Abbasi S. Abraham J. Azamathulla H. M. 2020b Efficiency of trapezoidal labyrinth shaped stepped spillways. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 72, 101711.
Gonzalez C. A. Chanson H. 2008 Turbulence and cavity recirculation in air-water skimming flows on a stepped spillway. Journal of Hydraulic Research 46 (1), 65–72.
Gunal M. 1996 Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Hydraulic Jumps. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK.
Hirt C. W. Nichols B. D. 1981 Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics 39 (1), 201–225.
Matos J. 2000 Hydraulic design of stepped spillways over RCC dams. In: Intl Workshop on Hydraulics of Stepped Spillways (H.-E. Minor & W. Hager, eds). Balkema Publ, Zurich, pp. 187–194.
Mohammad Rezapour Tabari M. Tavakoli S. 2016 Effects of stepped spillway geometry on flow pattern and energy dissipation. Arabian Journal for Science & Engineering (Springer Science & Business Media BV) 41 (4), 1215–1224.
Ostad Mirza M. J. 2016 Experimental Study on the Influence of Abrupt Slope Changes on Flow Characteristics Over Stepped Spillways. Communications du Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques, No. 64 (A. J. Schleiss, ed.). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Roshan R. Azamathulla H. M. Marosi M. Sarkardeh H. Pahlavan H. Ab Ghani A. 2010 Hydraulics of stepped spillways with different numbers of steps. Dams and Reservoirs 20 (3), 131–136.
Shahheydari H. Nodoshan E. J. Barati R. Moghadam M. A. 2015 Discharge coefficient and energy dissipation over stepped spillway under skimming flow regime. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 19 (4), 1174–1182.
Takahashi M. Ohtsu I. 2012 Aerated flow characteristics of skimming flow over stepped chutes. Journal of Hydraulic Research 50 (4), 427–434.
Versteeg H. K. Malalasekera W. 2007 An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method. Pearson Education, Harlow.
© 2021 The Authors
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).