1 / 57

# Computational Modeling of Flow over a Spillway In Vatnsfellsst fla Dam in Iceland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Computational Modeling of Flow over a Spillway In Vatnsfellsst fla Dam in Iceland' - Olivia

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Computational Modeling of Flow over a SpillwayIn Vatnsfellsstífla Dam in Iceland

Master’s Thesis Presentation

Chalmers University of Technology

2007 – 02 - 02

• Introduction and background

• Method

• Theory

• Results

• Conclusions and future work

Layout chute, bottom outlet and stilling basin

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Identify the computational domain to be modeled (according to the goals!)

• Draw the computational domain in 3D in Autodesk INVENTOR

• Import the geometry into the mesh making software GAMBIT and divide the computational domain into computational cells of different size in GAMBIT

• Import the mesh into the CFD-solver FLUENT, set up the numerical model, compute and monitor the solution

• Postprocessing with FLUENT and MATLAB; examine the results and consider revisions to the model

• 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

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 reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsgrids 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 reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsnr. 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: reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsdifferent types of mesh; consisting of both hexahedron cells and tetrahedron cellsca. 498 000 cells

Grid nr. 9 includes the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsthough coarse in view of the size of the computational domain

Grid nr. 9: reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsincludes a simplified rock rip-rap downstream the basin

Setting up the numerical model reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

• 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 reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsand 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.

### Main results! reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsComparison to the experimental results

Water reservoir head vs. flow discharge; Q=CBH reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels3/2where Q= flow discharge, C= discharge coefficient, B = length of crest, H=head

Discharge coefficient (C) vs. flow discharge reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Water level along the chute sidewalls reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Pressure on the chute bottom reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels– location of investigation points

Pressure on the chute bottom reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelspoint A: 23 % deviation from exp-results

Pressure on the chute bottom reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelspoint B: 16 % deviation from exp-results

Pressure on the chute bottom reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelspoint C: 9 % deviation from exp-results

Water surface in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Water surface in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Water surface in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Water level in the left upstream corner reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsof the stilling basin

Volume fraction of water in the basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels(longitudinal profile) – determines the water level

Velocity contours in the spillway and reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsthe stilling basin

Velocity vectors in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Pressure on the baffles in the first baffle row reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Pressure on two baffles in the first row reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels(deviations from experimental results in parantheses)

Static pressure in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Dynamic pressure in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Total pressure in the stilling basin reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Total pressure on the basin end sill reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels- a view under the water surface in the downstream end of the basin

Total pressure on the basin end sill reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels-location of investigation points

Total pressure on the basin end sill reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

Velocity profile above end sill reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levelsright under the water surface

Main results - summary reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

• 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? reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels

• 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? reservoir by the spillway crest – different water levels- e.g. time dependent calculations