Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Computational Modeling of Flow
over a Spillway
In Vatnsfellsstífla Dam in Iceland
Master’s Thesis Presentation
Chalmers University of Technology
2007 – 02 - 02
Presentation Schedule
• Introduction and background
• Method
• Theory
• Results
• Conclusions and future work
Vatnsfellsvirkjun hydroelectric scheme
from above
The spillway at Vatnsfell – from below
The spillway at Vatnsfell – the crest
The splitter wall and cover from above
The chute cover from below
The spillway and the stilling basin
Layout
chute, bottom outlet and stilling basin
The spillway – characteristics
• Function: cope with accidental flooding
• Height above stilling basin bottom: 27.5 m
• Lenght of spillway crest: 50 m
• Equipped with a splitter wall and cover to
prevent overtopping of the chute sidewalls
• The velocity of the water is above 20 m/s
(=72 km/hour!) where it flows into the
stilling basin
If neither splitter wall nor chute cover...
The stilling basin – characteristics
• Function: Decrease flow velocity in order to
decrease risk for erosion in the river wally
downstream the basin
• Equipped with 28 energy dissipating baffles
(height from 1.5 to 2.0 m)
• Length ca. 33 m and the width increasing from
22 m in the upstream part to 33 m in the
downstream part, depth ca. 7 m
• Downstream the stilling basin is a 35 m long
rock rip-rap made of rocks with diameter of
0.4 – 1.2 m
Background and goals
• In 1999 Vattenfall in Sweden did hydraulic
experiments for the spillway with a 1:30 model
• In the experiments flow was investigated over
the spillway, through the bottom outlet and in the
stilling basin
• Goals of the present study:
– investigate flow over the spillway and in the stilling
basin with computational methods (CFD)
– compare CFD-results with experimental results
Vattenfall’s hydraulic model
Aspects • Spillway:
– water head in the reservoir vs. the discharge capacity of the spillway
– Water level along the chute sidewalls
– Pressure acting on the chute bottom
• Stilling basin:
– Water level
– Pressure acting on the baffles and the end sill
– Flow velocity out of the basin
Method 1. Identify the computational domain to be modeled
(according to the goals!)
2. Draw the computational domain in 3D in Autodesk
INVENTOR
3. Import the geometry into the mesh making software
GAMBIT and divide the computational domain into
computational cells of different size in GAMBIT
4. Import the mesh into the CFD-solver FLUENT, set up
the numerical model, compute and monitor the solution
5. Postprocessing with FLUENT and MATLAB; examine the results and consider revisions to the model
The computational domain
• Three different domains:
– One for head vs. flow discharge
– One for water level and pressure in the
spillway chute
– One for water level, pressure and flow velocity
in the stilling basin
• Why different domains?
– to spare computational power and get more
precise results
Computational domain nr. 1
Computational domain nr. 2
Computational domain nr. 3
Grids nr. 1 – 7 as seen from above
- one grid for each of the seven different cases with flow
discharge of 50 – 350 m3/s, ca. 653 000 cells/grid
Cut through grids nr. 1 and 7 in the
downstream end of the reservoir by the
spillway crest – different water levels
• Grid to the left: designed for flow discharge of 50 m3/s
• Grid to the right: designed for flow discharge of 350 m3/s
Grid nr. 8: finer in the chute than
grids nr. 1 – 7, ca. 1393 000 cells
• The mesh in the spillway bottom
– To the left: mesh 7 which is NOT specifically designed to
investigate pressure and water level in the spillway chute
– To the right: mesh 8 which is specifically designed to investigate
pressure and water level in the spillway chute
Mesh nr. 8: finer in the chute than meshes
nr. 1 - 7
• The grid perpendicular to the splitter wall
– To the left: mesh 7 which is NOT specifically designed to
investigate pressure and water level in the spillway chute
– To the right: mesh 8 which is specifically designed to investigate
pressure and water level in the spillway chute
Grid nr. 9:
different types of mesh; consisting of both
hexahedron cells and tetrahedron cells
ca. 498 000 cells
Grid nr. 9 includes the stilling basin though coarse in view of the size of the
computational domain
Grid nr. 9: includes a simplified rock
rip-rap downstream the basin
Setting up the numerical model
• Define
– Material properties (air, water, concrete)
– Boundary conditions (inlet, outlet, walls,
air pressure,...)
– Operating conditions (air pressure, gravity, temperature...)
– Turbulence model (standard k-ε)
– Initial solution (nB: steady flow)
– Convergence criteria
Theory – equations of motion
and the VOF method
• The continuity equation for incompressible flow:
• The momentum equation for incompressible flow:
• VOF method in FLUENT
– assumes that the two phases (air and water) are not
interpenetrating
– denoting αq as the volume fraction of the q-th phase three possibilities
for a given cell can be noted:
– i) : the cell is empty of the q-th phase,
– ii) : the cell is full of the q-th phase,
– iii) : the cell contains the interphase between the q-th phase and one or more phases.
0i iu∂ =
0
1i i j j iD u p uν
ρ= − ∂ + ∂ ∂
0q
α =
1qα =
0 1q
α< <
Main results! Comparison to the experimental results
Water reservoir head vs. flow discharge; Q=CBH3/2
where Q= flow discharge, C= discharge coefficient, B = length of crest, H=head
Discharge coefficient (C) vs. flow discharge
Water level along the chute sidewalls
Pressure on the chute bottom
– location of investigation points
Pressure on the chute bottom
point A: 23 % deviation from exp-results
Pressure on the chute bottom
point B: 16 % deviation from exp-results
Pressure on the chute bottom
point C: 9 % deviation from exp-results
Water surface in the stilling basin
Water surface in the stilling basin
Water surface in the stilling basin
Water level in the left upstream corner
of the stilling basin
Volume fraction of water in the basin
(longitudinal profile) – determines the water level
Velocity contours in the spillway and
the stilling basin
Velocity vectors in the stilling basin
Pressure on the baffles in the first baffle row
Pressure on two baffles in the first row (deviations from experimental results in
parantheses)
Baffle
Pressure on
upstream face
(kPa)
Pressure on downstream
face (kPa)
Resultant pressure
(kPa)
B1CFD_case
9
151 18 133 (53 % dev.)
B1CFD_case
6
155 1 154 (46 % dev.)
B1EXP 272 -14 286
B2CFD_case
9
199 - 2 201 (16 % dev.)
B2CFD_case
6
200 -11 211 (11 % dev.)
B2EXP 233 -5 238
Static pressure in the stilling basin
Dynamic pressure in the stilling basin
Total pressure in the stilling basin
Total pressure on the basin end sill - a view under the water surface in the
downstream end of the basin
Total pressure on the basin end sill
- location of investigation points
Location Pressure on
upstream face
(kPa)
Pressure on
Downstream
face (kPa)
Resultant
pressure
(kPa)
EXP
Results
(kPa)
K 32.4 29.2 3.2 2.5
L 35.9 34.3 1.6 8.7
M 31.3 26.6 4.7 3.7
N 29.3 26.2 3.1 0.3
Total pressure on the basin end sill
Velocity profile above end sill right under the water surface
Main results - summary
• Good agreement is reached between the experiments and CFD calculations for the following aspects:
– head vs. discharge capacity (Q=CBH3/2)
– pressure in the spillway chute
– flow velocity above the basin end sill
• Worse agreement is reached for:
– pressure on baffles in the upstream end of the basin
– water depth along chute sidewalls and in the left upstream corner of the basin
– pressure on the basin end sill
Future work – what might to be
done better or added?
• Calculate the flow through the bottom
outlet
• Better resolve the turbulent boundary
layers close to walls
⇒ finer mesh
⇒ more computational power
⇒ even parallel processing
What more can be done? - e.g. time dependent calculations
Thank you!