Figure 3 – Free surface views. Bottom left: k-ε RNG model. Bottom right: LES.

물리적 모델링 및 CFD 비교: 방수로 모드의 HydroCombined 발전소 사례 연구

Gonzalo Duró, Mariano De Dios, Alfredo López, Sergio O. Liscia

ABSTRACT

This study presents comparisons between the results of a commercial CFD code and physical model measurements. The case study is a hydro-combined power station operating in spillway mode for a given scenario. Two turbulence models and two scales are implemented to identify the capabilities and limitations of each approach and to determine the selection criteria for CFD modeling for this kind of structure. The main flow characteristics are considered for analysis, but the focus is on a fluctuating frequency phenomenon for accurate quantitative comparisons. Acceptable representations of the general hydraulic functioning are found in all approaches, according to physical modeling. The k-ε RNG, and LES models give good representation of the discharge flow, mean water depths, and mean pressures for engineering purposes. The k-ε RNG is not able to characterize fluctuating phenomena at a model scale but does at a prototype scale. The LES is capable of identifying the dominant frequency at both prototype and model scales. A prototype-scale approach is recommended for the numerical modeling to obtain a better representation of fluctuating pressures for both turbulence models, with the complement of physical modeling for the ultimate design of the hydraulic structures.

본 연구에서는 상용 CFD 코드 결과와 물리적 모델 측정 결과를 비교합니다. 사례 연구는 주어진 시나리오에 대해 배수로 모드에서 작동하는 수력 복합 발전소입니다.

각 접근 방식의 기능과 한계를 식별하고 이러한 종류의 구조에 대한 CFD 모델링의 선택 기준을 결정하기 위해 두 개의 난류 모델과 두 개의 스케일이 구현되었습니다. 주요 흐름 특성을 고려하여 분석하지만 정확한 정량적 비교를 위해 변동하는 주파수 현상에 중점을 둡니다.

일반적인 수리학적 기능에 대한 허용 가능한 표현은 물리적 모델링에 따라 모든 접근 방식에서 발견됩니다. k-ε RNG 및 LES 모델은 엔지니어링 목적을 위한 배출 유량, 평균 수심 및 평균 압력을 잘 표현합니다.

k-ε RNG는 모델 규모에서는 변동 현상을 특성화할 수 없지만 프로토타입 규모에서는 특성을 파악합니다. LES는 프로토타입과 모델 규모 모두에서 주요 주파수를 식별할 수 있습니다.

수력학적 구조의 궁극적인 설계를 위한 물리적 모델링을 보완하여 두 난류 모델에 대한 변동하는 압력을 더 잘 표현하기 위해 수치 모델링에 프로토타입 규모 접근 방식이 권장됩니다.

Figure 1 – Physical scale model (left). Upstream flume and point gauge (right)
Figure 1 – Physical scale model (left). Upstream flume and point gauge (right)
Figure 3 – Free surface views. Bottom left: k-ε RNG model. Bottom right: LES.
Figure 3 – Free surface views. Bottom left: k-ε RNG model. Bottom right: LES.
Figure 4 – Water levels: physical model (maximum values) and CFD results (mean values)
Figure 4 – Water levels: physical model (maximum values) and CFD results (mean values)
Figure 5 – Instantaneous pressures [Pa] and velocities [m/s] at model scale (bay center)
Figure 5 – Instantaneous pressures [Pa] and velocities [m/s] at model scale (bay center)

Keywords

CFD validation, hydro-combined, k-ε RNG, LES, pressure spectrum

PDF Download

REFERENCES

ADRIAN R. J. (2007). “Hairpin vortex organization in wall turbulence.” Phys. Fluids 19(4), 041301.
DEWALS B., ARCHAMBEAU P., RULOT F., PIROTTON M. and ERPICUM S. (2013). “Physical and
Numerical Modelling in Low-Head Structures Design.” Proc. International Workshop on Hydraulic
Design of Low-Head Structures, Aachen, Germany, Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau Publ., D.B. BUNG
and S. PAGLIARA Editors, pp.11-30.
GRENANDER, U. (1959). Probability and Statistics: The Harald Cramér Volume. Wiley.
HIRT, C. W. and NICHOLS B. D. (1981). “Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries.” Journal of Computational Physics 39(1): 201-225.
JOHNSON M. C. and SAVAGE B. M. (2006). “Physical and numerical comparison of flow over ogee
spillway in the presence of tailwater.” J. Hydraulic Eng. 132(12): 1353–1357.
KHAN L.A., WICKLEIN E.A., RASHID M., EBNER L.L. and RICHARDS N.A. (2004).
“Computational fluid dynamics modeling of turbine intake hydraulics at a hydropower plant.” Journal
of Hydraulic Research, 42:1, 61-69
LAROCQUE L.A., IMRAN J. and CHAUDHRY M. (2013). “3D numerical simulation of partial breach
dam-break flow using the LES and k–ϵ turbulence models.” Jl of Hydraulic Research, 51:2, 145-157
LI S., LAI Y., WEBER L., MATOS SILVA J. and PATEL V.C. (2004). “Validation of a threedimensional numerical model for water-pump intakes.” Journal of Hydraulic Research, 42:3, 282-292
NOVAK P., GUINOT V., JEFFREY A. and REEVE D.E. (2010). “Hydraulic modelling – An
introduction.” Spon Press, London and New York, ISBN 978-0-419-25010-4, 616 pp.

PDF Download