Energy Dissipation of a Type III Basin under Design and Adverse Conditions for Stepped and Smooth Spillways

Valero, Daniel; Bung, Daniel B.; Crookston, Brian M.

doi:10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-7900.0001482

Cited by 36 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A general description is found in [44]. A few recent studies on the topic include Teng and Yang [28], Damion [45], Valero and García-Bartual [46], Bayon et al [47], Wang et al [48], Valero et al [49] and Yang et al [50].…”

Section: Sources Of Errors In Cfdmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective

Yang

Andreasson

Teng

et al. 2019

Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the hydropower dams in Sweden were built before 1980. The present dam-safety guidelines have resulted in higher design floods than their spillway discharge capacity and the need for structural upgrades. This has led to renewed laboratory model tests. For some dams, even computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are performed. This provides the possibility to compare the spillway discharge data between the model tests performed a few decades apart. The paper presents the hydropower development, the needs for the ongoing dam rehabilitations and the history of physical hydraulic modeling in Sweden. More than 20 spillways, both surface and bottom types, are analyzed to evaluate their discharge modeling accuracy. The past and present model tests are compared with each other and with the CFD results if available. Discrepancies do exist in the discharges between the model tests made a few decades apart. The differences fall within the range −8.3%-+11.2%. The reasons for the discrepancies are sought from several aspects. The primary source of the errors is seemingly the model construction quality and flow measurement method. The machine milling technique and 3D printing reduce the source of construction errors and improve the model quality. Results of the CFD simulations differ, at the maximum, by 3.8% from the physical tests. They are conducted without knowledge of the physical model results in advance. Following the best practice guidelines, CFD should generate results of decent accuracy for discharge prediction.

show abstract

Section: Sources Of Errors In Cfdmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective

Yang

Andreasson

Teng

et al. 2019

Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When a stilling basin is properly designed, the hydraulic jump can be unconditionally stable for small Froude numbers, as experimentally shown by Frizell and Svoboda [40]. Valero et al [41] numerically showed that the basin elements of the case study of Frizell and Svoboda [40] present a dynamic role, able to counter the inlet momentum for adverse tailwater conditions.…”

Section: General Remarksmentioning

confidence: 92%

Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Jumps. Part 1: Experimental Data for Modelling Performance Assessment

Valero

Viti

Gualtieri

2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydraulic jumps have been the object of extensive experimental investigation, providing the numerical community with a complete case study for models’ performance assessment. This study constitutes an exhaustive literature review on hydraulic jumps’ experimental datasets. Both mean and turbulent parameters characterising hydraulic jumps are comprehensively discussed, presenting at least a reference to one dataset. Three studies stand out over other datasets due to their completeness. Using them as reference for model validation may ensure homogeneous and comparable performance assessment for the upcoming numerical models. Experimental inaccuracies are also addressed, allowing the numerical modeller to understand the uncertainties of reduced physical models and its limitations. Part 2 presents the three-dimensional numerical investigations to date and their main achievements.

show abstract

“…The longitudinal interfaces between adjacent blocks are set symmetry boundary to let the water freely pass. The similar boundary conditions setting for 3D numerical model in the Flow 3D software can be found in Valero's descriptions [19].…”

Section: Initial Boundary Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The wall function method does not directly deduce the viscous sublayer, but arranges the grid point of first layer within the log law region (30 < y + < 200∼400) and then relates the viscous layer to the log law region with empirical formulas. Compared with the near wall modeling method, the wall function method does not need to specifically compact the grid near the wall but saves much more computation time with higher efficiency [19,[22][23][24]. In view of the unique grid generation technology in the Flow 3D software, as shown in Figure 2, the grid can be flexibly adjusted to embed into the walls of numerical model.…”

Section: Initial Boundary Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Modeling of 3D Flow Field among a Compound Stilling Basin

Zhao

Wang

2019

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to great velocity gradients among the outgoing flow, it is much common to form large-scale reverse flow with oblique movements outside the conventional separated stilling basin. Aimed at above problems, this paper proposes to remove the longitudinal splitter wall and then physically and numerically investigate the corresponding influence upon the compound stilling basin. The standard k-ε, renormalization group k-ε, realizable k-ε, and large eddy simulation turbulence models are all employed to reveal downstream three-dimensional flow field. Experimental validation of numerical results shows that the renormalization group k-ε turbulence model is the most successful in predicting the flow field among the four models. Both methods prove that the removed splitter wall exerts great impact upon downstream stilling basin. In view of the removed splitter wall, discharging inflow would greatly diffuse to form a typical three-dimensional (3D) hydraulic jump with large-scale reverse flow. High energy dissipation region and high turbulent kinetic energy region are both moved upstream. Thus, the velocity decay among the discharging flow in the compound stilling basin is significantly enhanced. Compared to the separated stilling basin, the maximum velocity and average velocity of the outgoing flow, respectively, decrease more than 30%, and 20% in the compound stilling basin. Additionally, the velocity gradients between the left and the right outgoing flow reduce by over 65% with turbulent kinetic energy gradients almost down to zero. The outgoing flow from the compound stilling basin becomes much uniform with the phenomenon of obliquely moving flow totally eliminated.

show abstract

Energy Dissipation of a Type III Basin under Design and Adverse Conditions for Stepped and Smooth Spillways

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective

The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective

Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Jumps. Part 1: Experimental Data for Modelling Performance Assessment

Numerical Modeling of 3D Flow Field among a Compound Stilling Basin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About