[태그:] Buoyancy

Abstract

This paper presents the results of tests on the suitability of designed heads (impellers) for aluminum refining. The research was carried out on a physical model of the URO-200, followed by numerical simulations in the FLOW 3D program. Four design variants of impellers were used in the study. The degree of dispersion of the gas phase in the model liquid was used as a criterion for evaluating the performance of each solution using different process parameters, i.e., gas flow rate and impeller speed. Afterward, numerical simulations in Flow 3D software were conducted for the best solution. These simulations confirmed the results obtained with the water model and verified them.

Keywords: aluminum, impeller construction, degassing process, numerical modeling, physical modeling

1. Introduction

Constantly increasing requirements concerning metallurgical purity in terms of hydrogen content and nonmetallic inclusions make casting manufacturers use effective refining techniques. The answer to this demand is the implementation of the aluminum refining technique making use of a rotor with an original design guaranteeing efficient refining [1,2,3,4]. The main task of the impeller (rotor) is to reduce the contamination of liquid metal (primary and recycled aluminum) with hydrogen and nonmetallic inclusions. An inert gas, mainly argon or a mixture of gases, is introduced through the rotor into the liquid metal to bring both hydrogen and nonmetallic inclusions to the metal surface through the flotation process. Appropriately and uniformly distributed gas bubbles in the liquid metal guarantee achieving the assumed level of contaminant removal economically. A very important factor in deciding about the obtained degassing effect is the optimal rotor design [5,6,7,8]. Thanks to the appropriate geometry of the rotor, gas bubbles introduced into the liquid metal are split into smaller ones, and the spinning movement of the rotor distributes them throughout the volume of the liquid metal bath. In this solution impurities in the liquid metal are removed both in the volume and from the upper surface of the metal. With a well-designed impeller, the costs of refining aluminum and its alloys can be lowered thanks to the reduced inert gas and energy consumption (optimal selection of rotor rotational speed). Shorter processing time and a high degree of dehydrogenation decrease the formation of dross on the metal surface (waste). A bigger produced dross leads to bigger process losses. Consequently, this means that the choice of rotor geometry has an indirect impact on the degree to which the generated waste is reduced [9,10].

Another equally important factor is the selection of process parameters such as gas flow rate and rotor speed [11,12]. A well-designed gas injection system for liquid metal meets two key requirements; it causes rapid mixing of the liquid metal to maintain a uniform temperature throughout the volume and during the entire process, to produce a chemically homogeneous metal composition. This solution ensures effective degassing of the metal bath. Therefore, the shape of the rotor, the arrangement of the nozzles, and their number are significant design parameters that guarantee the optimum course of the refining process. It is equally important to complete the mixing of the metal bath in a relatively short time, as this considerably shortens the refining process and, consequently, reduces the process costs. Another important criterion conditioning the implementation of the developed rotor is the generation of fine diffused gas bubbles which are distributed throughout the metal volume, and whose residence time will be sufficient for the bubbles to collide and adsorb the contaminants. The process of bubble formation by the spinning rotors differs from that in the nozzles or porous molders. In the case of a spinning rotor, the shear force generated by the rotor motion splits the bubbles into smaller ones. Here, the rotational speed, mixing force, surface tension, and fluid density have a key effect on the bubble size. The velocity of the bubbles, which depends mainly on their size and shape, determines their residence time in the reactor and is, therefore, very important for the refining process, especially since gas bubbles in liquid aluminum may remain steady only below a certain size [13,14,15].

The impeller designs presented in the article were developed to improve the efficiency of the process and reduce its costs. The impellers used so far have a complicated structure and are very pricey. The success of the conducted research will allow small companies to become independent of external supplies through the possibility of making simple and effective impellers on their own. The developed structures were tested on the water model. The results of this study can be considered as pilot.

2. Materials and Methods

Rotors were realized with the SolidWorks computer design technique and a 3D printer. The developed designs were tested on a water model. Afterward, the solution with the most advantageous refining parameters was selected and subjected to calculations with the Flow3D package. As a result, an impeller was designed for aluminum refining. Its principal lies in an even distribution of gas bubbles in the entire volume of liquid metal, with the largest possible participation of the bubble surface, without disturbing the metal surface. This procedure guarantees the removal of gaseous, as well as metallic and nonmetallic, impurities.

2.1. Rotor Designs

The developed impeller constructions, shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4, were printed on a 3D printer using the PLA (polylactide) material. The impeller design models differ in their shape and the number of holes through which the inert gas flows. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the same impeller model but with a different number of gas outlets. The arrangement of four, eight, and 12 outlet holes was adopted in the developed design. A triangle-shaped structure equipped with three gas outlet holes is presented in Figure 4.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g001.jpg

Figure 1

A 3D model—impeller with four holes—variant B4.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g002.jpg

Figure 2

A 3D model—impeller with eight holes—variant B8.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g003.jpg

Figure 3

A 3D model—impeller with twelve holes—variant B12.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g004.jpg

Figure 4

A 3D model—‘red triangle’ impeller with three holes—variant RT3.

2.2. Physical Models

Investigations were carried out on a water model of the URO 200 reactor of the barbotage refining process (see Figure 5).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g005.jpg

Figure 5

A schematic of the water model of reactor URO 200.

The URO 200 reactor can be classified as a cyclic reactor. The main element of the device is a rotor, which ends the impeller. The whole system is attached to a shaft via which the refining gas is supplied. Then, the shaft with the rotor is immersed in the liquid metal in the melting pot or the furnace chamber. In URO 200 reactors, the refining process lasts 600 s (10 min), the gas flow rate that can be obtained ranges from 5 to 20 dm³·min⁻¹, and the speed at which the rotor can move is 0 to 400 rpm. The permissible quantity of liquid metal for barbotage refining is 300 kg or 700 kg [8,16,17]. The URO 200 has several design solutions which improve operation and can be adapted to the existing equipment in the foundry. These solutions include the following [8,16]:

URO-200XR—used for small crucible furnaces, the capacity of which does not exceed 250 kg, with no control system and no control of the refining process.
URO-200SA—used to service several crucible furnaces of capacity from 250 kg to 700 kg, fully automated and equipped with a mechanical rotor lift.
URO-200KA—used for refining processes in crucible furnaces and allows refining in a ladle. The process is fully automated, with a hydraulic rotor lift.
URO-200KX—a combination of the XR and KA models, designed for the ladle refining process. Additionally, refining in heated crucibles is possible. The unit is equipped with a manual hydraulic rotor lift.
URO-200PA—designed to cooperate with induction or crucible furnaces or intermediate chambers, the capacity of which does not exceed one ton. This unit is an integral part of the furnace. The rotor lift is equipped with a screw drive.

Studies making use of a physical model can be associated with the observation of the flow and circulation of gas bubbles. They require meeting several criteria regarding the similarity of the process and the object characteristics. The similarity conditions mainly include geometric, mechanical, chemical, thermal, and kinetic parameters. During simulation of aluminum refining with inert gas, it is necessary to maintain the geometric similarity between the model and the real object, as well as the similarity related to the flow of liquid metal and gas (hydrodynamic similarity). These quantities are characterized by the Reynolds, Weber, and Froude numbers. The Froude number is the most important parameter characterizing the process, its magnitude is the same for the physical model and the real object. Water was used as the medium in the physical modeling. The factors influencing the choice of water are its availability, relatively low cost, and kinematic viscosity at room temperature, which is very close to that of liquid aluminum.

The physical model studies focused on the flow of inert gas in the form of gas bubbles with varying degrees of dispersion, particularly with respect to some flow patterns such as flow in columns and geysers, as well as disturbance of the metal surface. The most important refining parameters are gas flow rate and rotor speed. The barbotage refining studies for the developed impeller (variants B4, B8, B12, and RT3) designs were conducted for the following process parameters:

Rotor speed: 200, 300, 400, and 500 rpm,
Ideal gas flow: 10, 20, and 30 dm³·min⁻¹,
Temperature: 293 K (20 °C).

These studies were aimed at determining the most favorable variants of impellers, which were then verified using the numerical modeling methods in the Flow-3D program.

2.3. Numerical Simulations with Flow-3D Program

Testing different rotor impellers using a physical model allows for observing the phenomena taking place while refining. This is a very important step when testing new design solutions without using expensive industrial trials. Another solution is modeling by means of commercial simulation programs such as ANSYS Fluent or Flow-3D [18,19]. Unlike studies on a physical model, in a computer program, the parameters of the refining process and the object itself, including the impeller design, can be easily modified. The simulations were performed with the Flow-3D program version 12.03.02. A three-dimensional system with the same dimensions as in the physical modeling was used in the calculations. The isothermal flow of liquid–gas bubbles was analyzed. As in the physical model, three speeds were adopted in the numerical tests: 200, 300, and 500 rpm. During the initial phase of the simulations, the velocity field around the rotor generated an appropriate direction of motion for the newly produced bubbles. When the required speed was reached, the generation of randomly distributed bubbles around the rotor was started at a rate of 2000 per second. Table 1 lists the most important simulation parameters.

Table 1

Values of parameters used in the calculations.

Parameter	Value	Unit
Maximum number of gas particles	1,000,000	–
Rate of particle generation	2000	1·s⁻¹
Specific gas constant	287.058	J·kg⁻¹·K⁻¹
Atmospheric pressure	1.013 × 10⁵	Pa
Water density	1000	kg·m⁻³
Water viscosity	0.001	kg·m⁻¹·s⁻¹
Boundary condition on the walls	No-slip	–
Size of computational cell	0.0034	m

In the case of the CFD analysis, the numerical solutions require great care when generating the computational mesh. Therefore, computational mesh tests were performed prior to the CFD calculations. The effect of mesh density was evaluated by taking into account the velocity of water in the tested object on the measurement line A (height of 0.065 m from the bottom) in a characteristic cross-section passing through the object axis (see Figure 6). The mesh contained 3,207,600, 6,311,981, 7,889,512, 11,569,230, and 14,115,049 cells.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g006.jpg

Figure 6

The velocity of the water depending on the size of the computational grid.

The quality of the generated computational meshes was checked using the criterion skewness angle Q_EAS [18]. This criterion is described by the following relationship:

QEAS=max{βmax−βeq180−βeq,βeq−βminβeq},

(1)

where β_max, β_min are the maximal and minimal angles (in degrees) between the edges of the cell, and β_eq is the angle corresponding to an ideal cell, which for cubic cells is 90°.

Normalized in the interval [0;1], the value of Q_EAS should not exceed 0.75, which identifies the permissible skewness angle of the generated mesh. For the computed meshes, this value was equal to 0.55–0.65.

Moreover, when generating the computational grids in the studied facility, they were compacted in the areas of the highest gradients of the calculated values, where higher turbulence is to be expected (near the impeller). The obtained results of water velocity in the studied object at constant gas flow rate are shown in Figure 6.

The analysis of the obtained water velocity distributions (see Figure 6) along the line inside the object revealed that, with the density of the grid of nodal points, the velocity changed and its changes for the test cases of 7,889,512, 11,569,230, and 14,115,049 were insignificant. Therefore, it was assumed that a grid containing not less than 7,900,000 (7,889,512) cells would not affect the result of CFD calculations.

A single-block mesh of regular cells with a size of 0.0034 m was used in the numerical calculations. The total number of cells was approximately 7,900,000 (7,889,512). This grid resolution (see Figure 7) allowed the geometry of the system to be properly represented, maintaining acceptable computation time (about 3 days on a workstation with 2× CPU and 12 computing cores).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g007.jpg

Figure 7

Structured equidistant mesh used in numerical calculations: (a) mesh with smoothed, surface cells (the so-called FAVOR method) used in Flow-3D; (b) visualization of the applied mesh resolution.

The calculations were conducted with an explicit scheme. The timestep was selected by the program automatically and controlled by stability and convergence. From the moment of the initial velocity field generation (start of particle generation), it was 0.0001 s.

When modeling the degassing process, three fluids are present in the system: water, gas supplied through the rotor head (impeller), and the surrounding air. Modeling such a multiphase flow is a numerically very complex issue. The necessity to overcome the liquid backpressure by the gas flowing out from the impeller leads to the formation of numerical instabilities in the volume of fluid (VOF)-based approach used by Flow-3D software. Therefore, a mixed description of the analyzed flow was used here. In this case, water was treated as a continuous medium, while, in the case of gas bubbles, the discrete phase model (DPM) model was applied. The way in which the air surrounding the system was taken into account is later described in detail.

The following additional assumptions were made in the modeling:

—The liquid phase was considered as an incompressible Newtonian fluid.
—The effect of chemical reactions during the refining process was neglected.
—The composition of each phase (gas and liquid) was considered homogeneous; therefore, the viscosity and surface tension were set as constants.
—Only full turbulence existed in the liquid, and the effect of molecular viscosity was neglected.
—The gas bubbles were shaped as perfect spheres.
—The mutual interaction between gas bubbles (particles) was neglected.

2.3.1. Modeling of Liquid Flow

The motion of the real fluid (continuous medium) is described by the Navier–Stokes Equation [20].

dudt=−1ρ∇p+ν∇2u+13ν∇(∇⋅ u)+F,

(2)

where du/dt is the time derivative, u is the velocity vector, t is the time, and F is the term accounting for external forces including gravity (unit components denoted by X, Y, Z).

In the simulations, the fluid flow was assumed to be incompressible, in which case the following equation is applicable:

∂u∂t+(u⋅∇)u=−1ρ∇p+ν∇2u+F.

(3)

Due to the large range of liquid velocities during flows, the turbulence formation process was included in the modeling. For this purpose, the k–ε model turbulence kinetic energy k and turbulence dissipation ε were the target parameters, as expressed by the following equations [21]:

∂(ρk)∂t+∂(ρkvi)∂xi=∂∂xj[(μ+μtσk)⋅∂k∂xi]+Gk+Gb−ρε−Ym+Sk,

(4)

∂(ρε)∂t+∂(ρεui)∂xi=∂∂xj[(μ+μtσε)⋅∂k∂xi]+C1εεk(Gk+G3εGb)+C2ερε2k+Sε,

(5)

where ρ is the gas density, σ_κ and σ_ε are the Prandtl turbulence numbers, k and ε are constants of 1.0 and 1.3, and G_k and G_b are the kinetic energy of turbulence generated by the average velocity and buoyancy, respectively.

As mentioned earlier, there are two gas phases in the considered problem. In addition to the gas bubbles, which are treated here as particles, there is also air, which surrounds the system. The boundary of phase separation is in this case the free surface of the water. The shape of the free surface can change as a result of the forming velocity field in the liquid. Therefore, it is necessary to use an appropriate approach to free surface tracking. The most commonly used concept in liquid–gas flow modeling is the volume of fluid (VOF) method [22,23], and Flow-3D uses a modified version of this method called TrueVOF. It introduces the concept of the volume fraction of the liquid phase f_l. This parameter can be used for classifying the cells of a discrete grid into areas filled with liquid phase (f_l = 1), gaseous phase, or empty cells (f_l = 0) and those through which the phase separation boundary (f_l ∈ (0, 1)) passes (free surface). To determine the local variations of the liquid phase fraction, it is necessary to solve the following continuity equation:

dfldt=0.

(6)

Then, the fluid parameters in the region of coexistence of the two phases (the so-called interface) depend on the volume fraction of each phase.

ρ=flρl+(1−fl)ρg,

(7)

ν=flνl+(1−fl)νg,

(8)

where indices l and g refer to the liquid and gaseous phases, respectively.

The parameter of fluid velocity in cells containing both phases is also determined in the same way.

u=flul+(1−fl)ug.

(9)

Since the processes taking place in the surrounding air can be omitted, to speed up the calculations, a single-phase, free-surface model was used. This means that no calculations were performed in the gas cells (they were treated as empty cells). The liquid could fill them freely, and the air surrounding the system was considered by the atmospheric pressure exerted on the free surface. This approach is often used in modeling foundry and metallurgical processes [24].

2.3.2. Modeling of Gas Bubble Flow

As stated, a particle model was used to model bubble flow. Spherical particles (gas bubbles) of a given size were randomly generated in the area marked with green in Figure 7b. In the simulations, the gas bubbles were assumed to have diameters of 0.016 and 0.02 m corresponding to the gas flow rates of 10 and 30 dm³·min⁻¹, respectively.

Experimental studies have shown that, as a result of turbulent fluid motion, some of the bubbles may burst, leading to the formation of smaller bubbles, although merging of bubbles into larger groupings may also occur. Therefore, to be able to observe the behavior of bubbles of different sizes (diameter), the calculations generated two additional particle types with diameters twice smaller and twice larger, respectively. The proportion of each species in the system was set to 33.33% (Table 2).

Table 2

Data assumed for calculations.

No	Rotor Speed (Rotational Speed) rpm	Bubbles Diameter m	Corresponding Gas Flow Rate dm³·min⁻¹	No	Rotor Speed (Rotational Speed) rpm	Bubbles Diameter m	Corresponding Gas Flow Rate dm³·min⁻¹
A	200	0.016	10	D	200	0.02	30
0.008	0.01
0.032	0.04
B	300	0.016	10	E	300	0.02	30
0.008	0.01
0.032	0.04
C	500	0.016	10	F	500	0.02	30
0.008	0.01
0.032	0.04

The velocity of the particle results from the generated velocity field (calculated from Equation (3) in the liquid ul around it and its velocity resulting from the buoyancy force ub. The effect of particle radius r on the terminal velocity associated with buoyancy force can be determined according to Stokes’ law.

ub=29 (ρg−ρl)μlgr2,

(10)

where g is the acceleration (9.81).

The DPM model was used for modeling the two-phase (water–air) flow. In this model, the fluid (water) is treated as a continuous phase and described by the Navier–Stokes equation, while gas bubbles are particles flowing in the model fluid (discrete phase). The trajectories of each bubble in the DPM system are calculated at each timestep taking into account the mass forces acting on it. Table 3 characterizes the DPM model used in our own research [18].

Table 3

Characteristic of the DPM model.

Method	Equations
Euler–Lagrange	Balance equation: dugdt=FD(u−ug)+g(ϱg−ϱ)ϱg+F. F_D (u − u_p) denotes the drag forces per mass unit of a bubble, and the expression for the drag coefficient F_D is of the form FD=18μCDReϱ⋅gd2g24. The relative Reynolds number has the form Re≡ρdg\|ug−u\|μ. On the other hand, the force resulting from the additional acceleration of the model fluid has the form F=12dρdtρg(u−ug), where u_g is the gas bubble velocity, u is the liquid velocity, d_g is the bubble diameter, and C_D is the drag coefficient.

Method

Equations

Euler–Lagrange

Balance equation:
dugdt=FD(u−ug)+g(ϱg−ϱ)ϱg+F.
F_D (u − u_p) denotes the drag forces per mass unit of a bubble, and the expression for the drag coefficient F_D is of the form
FD=18μCDReϱ⋅gd2g24.
The relative Reynolds number has the form
Re≡ρdg|ug−u|μ.
On the other hand, the force resulting from the additional acceleration of the model fluid has the form
F=12dρdtρg(u−ug),
where u_g is the gas bubble velocity, u is the liquid velocity, d_g is the bubble diameter, and C_D is the drag coefficient.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Calculations of Power and Mixing Time by the Flowing Gas Bubbles

One of the most important parameters of refining with a rotor is the mixing power induced by the spinning rotor and the outflowing gas bubbles (via impeller). The mixing power of liquid metal in a ladle of height (h) by gas injection can be determined from the following relation [15]:

pgVm=ρ⋅g⋅uB,

(11)

where p_g is the mixing power, V_m is the volume of liquid metal in the reactor, ρ is the density of liquid aluminum, and u_B is the average speed of bubbles, given below.

uB=n⋅R⋅TAc⋅Pm⋅t,

(12)

where n is the number of gas moles, R is the gas constant (8.314), A_c is the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel, T is the temperature of liquid aluminum in the reactor, and P_m is the pressure at the middle tank level. The pressure at the middle level of the tank is calculated by a function of the mean logarithmic difference.

Pm=(Pa+ρ⋅g⋅h)−Paln(Pa+ρ⋅g⋅h)Pa,

(13)

where P_a is the atmospheric pressure, and h is the the height of metal in the reactor.

Themelis and Goyal [25] developed a model for calculating mixing power delivered by gas injection.

pg=2Q⋅R⋅T⋅ln(1+m⋅ρ⋅g⋅hP),

(14)

where Q is the gas flow, and m is the mass of liquid metal.

Zhang [26] proposed a model taking into account the temperature difference between gas and alloy (metal).

pg=QRTgVm[ln(1+ρ⋅g⋅hPa)+(1−TTg)],

(15)

where T_g is the gas temperature at the entry point.

Data for calculating the mixing power resulting from inert gas injection into liquid aluminum are given below in Table 4. The design parameters were adopted for the model, the parameters of which are shown in Figure 5.

Table 4

Data for calculating mixing power introduced by an inert gas.

Parameter	Value	Unit
Height of metal column	0.7	m
Density of aluminum	2375	kg·m⁻³
Process duration	20	s
Gas temperature at the injection site	940	K
Cross-sectional area of ladle	0.448	m²
Mass of liquid aluminum	546.25	kg
Volume of ladle	0.23	M³
Temperature of liquid aluminum	941.15	K

Table 5 presents the results of mixing power calculations according to the models of Themelis and Goyal and of Zhang for inert gas flows of 10, 20, and 30 dm³·min⁻¹. The obtained calculation results significantly differed from each other. The difference was an order of magnitude, which indicates that the model is highly inaccurate without considering the temperature of the injected gas. Moreover, the calculations apply to the case when the mixing was performed only by the flowing gas bubbles, without using a rotor, which is a great simplification of the phenomenon.

Table 5

Mixing power calculated from mathematical models.

Mathematical Model	Mixing Power (W·t⁻¹) for a Given Inert Gas Flow (dm³·min⁻¹)
	10	20	30
Themelis and Goyal	11.49	23.33	35.03
Zhang	0.82	1.66	2.49

The mixing time is defined as the time required to achieve 95% complete mixing of liquid metal in the ladle [27,28,29,30]. Table 6 groups together equations for the mixing time according to the models.

Table 6

Models for calculating mixing time.

Authors	Model	Remarks
Szekely [31]	τ=800ε−0.4	ε—W·t⁻¹
Chiti and Paglianti [27]	τ=CVQl	V—volume of reactor, m³ Ql—flow intensity, m³·s⁻¹
Iguchi and Nakamura [32]	τ=1200⋅Q−0.4D1.97h−1.0υ0.47	υ—kinematic viscosity, m²·s⁻¹ D—diameter of ladle, m h—height of metal column, m Q—liquid flow intensity, m³·s⁻¹

Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the mixing time as a function of gas flow rate for various heights of the liquid column in the ladle and mixing power values.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g008.jpg

Figure 8

Mixing time as a function of gas flow rate for various heights of the metal column (Iguchi and Nakamura model).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g009.jpg

Figure 9

Mixing time as a function of mixing power (Szekly model).

3.2. Determining the Bubble Size

The mechanisms controlling bubble size and mass transfer in an alloy undergoing refining are complex. Strong mixing conditions in the reactor promote impurity mass transfer. In the case of a spinning rotor, the shear force generated by the rotor motion separates the bubbles into smaller bubbles. Rotational speed, mixing force, surface tension, and liquid density have a strong influence on the bubble size. To characterize the kinetic state of the refining process, parameters k and A were introduced. Parameters k, A, and u_B can be calculated using the below equations [33].

k=2D⋅uBdB⋅π−−−−−−√,

(16)

A=6Q⋅hdB⋅uB,

(17)

uB=1.02g⋅dB,−−−−−√

(18)

where D is the diffusion coefficient, and d_B is the bubble diameter.

After substituting appropriate values, we get

dB=3.03×104(πD)−2/5g−1/5h4/5Q0.344N−1.48.

(19)

According to the last equation, the size of the gas bubble decreases with the increasing rotational speed (see Figure 10).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g010.jpg

Figure 10

Effect of rotational speed on the bubble diameter.

In a flow of given turbulence intensity, the diameter of the bubble does not exceed the maximum size d_max, which is inversely proportional to the rate of kinetic energy dissipation in a viscous flow ε. The size of the gas bubble diameter as a function of the mixing energy, also considering the Weber number and the mixing energy in the negative power, can be determined from the following equations [31,34]:

—Sevik and Park:

dBmax=We0.6kr⋅(σ⋅103ρ⋅10−3)0.6⋅(10⋅ε)−0.4⋅10−2.

(20)

—Evans:

dBmax=⎡⎣Wekr⋅σ⋅1032⋅(ρ⋅10−3)13⎤⎦35 ⋅(10⋅ε)−25⋅10−2.

(21)

The results of calculating the maximum diameter of the bubble d_Bmax determined from Equation (21) are given in Table 7.

Table 7

The results of calculating the maximum diameter of the bubble using Equation (21).

Model	Mixing Energy ĺ (m²·s⁻³)	Weber Number (We_kr)
0.59	1.0	1.2
Zhang and Taniguchi d_max	0.1	0.0167	0.0230	0.026
0.5	0.0088	0.0121	0.013
1.0	0.0067	0.0091	0.010
1.5	0.0057	0.0078	0.009
Sevik and Park d_B_max	0.1	0.265	0.36	0.41
0.5	0.139	0.19	0.21
1.0	0.106	0.14	0.16
1.5	0.090	0.12	0.14
Evans d_B_max	0.1	0.247	0.340	0.38
0.5	0.130	0.178	0.20
1.0	0.098	0.135	0.15
1.5	0.084	0.115	0.13

3.3. Physical Modeling

The first stage of experiments (using the URO-200 water model) included conducting experiments with impellers equipped with four, eight, and 12 gas outlets (variants B4, B8, B12). The tests were carried out for different process parameters. Selected results for these experiments are presented in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g011.jpg

Figure 11

Impeller variant B4—gas bubbles dispersion registered for a gas flow rate of 10 dm³·min⁻¹ and rotor speed of (a) 200, (b) 300, (c) 400, and (d) 500 rpm.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g012.jpg

Figure 12

Impeller variant B8—gas bubbles dispersion registered for a gas flow rate of 10 dm³·min⁻¹ and rotor speed of (a) 200, (b) 300, (c) 400, and (d) 500 rpm.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g013.jpg

Figure 13

Gas bubble dispersion registered for different processing parameters (impeller variant B12).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g014.jpg

Figure 14

Gas bubble dispersion registered for different processing parameters (impeller variant RT3).

The analysis of the refining variants presented in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 reveals that the proposed impellers design model is not useful for the aluminum refining process. The number of gas outlet orifices, rotational speed, and flow did not affect the refining efficiency. In all the variants shown in the figures, very poor dispersion of gas bubbles was observed in the object. The gas bubble flow had a columnar character, and so-called dead zones, i.e., areas where no inert gas bubbles are present, were visible in the analyzed object. Such dead zones were located in the bottom and side zones of the ladle, while the flow of bubbles occurred near the turning rotor. Another negative phenomenon observed was a significant agitation of the water surface due to excessive (rotational) rotor speed and gas flow (see Figure 13, cases 20; 400, 30; 300, 30; 400, and 30; 500).

Research results for a ‘red triangle’ impeller equipped with three gas supply orifices (variant RT3) are presented in Figure 14.

In this impeller design, a uniform degree of bubble dispersion in the entire volume of the modeling fluid was achieved for most cases presented (see Figure 14). In all tested variants, single bubbles were observed in the area of the water surface in the vessel. For variants 20; 200, 30; 200, and 20; 300 shown in Figure 14, the bubble dispersion results were the worst as the so-called dead zones were identified in the area near the bottom and sidewalls of the vessel, which disqualifies these work parameters for further applications. Interestingly, areas where swirls and gas bubble chains formed were identified only for the inert gas flows of 20 and 30 dm³·min⁻¹ and 200 rpm in the analyzed model. This means that the presented model had the best performance in terms of dispersion of gas bubbles in the model liquid. Its design with sharp edges also differed from previously analyzed models, which is beneficial for gas bubble dispersion, but may interfere with its suitability in industrial conditions due to possible premature wear.

3.4. Qualitative Comparison of Research Results (CFD and Physical Model)

The analysis (physical modeling) revealed that the best mixing efficiency results were obtained with the RT3 impeller variant. Therefore, numerical calculations were carried out for the impeller model with three outlet orifices (variant RT3). The CFD results are presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g015.jpg

Figure 15

Simulation results of the impeller RT3, for given flows and rotational speeds after a time of 1 s: simulation variants (a) A, (b) B, (c) C, (d) D, (e) E, and (f) F.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g016.jpg

Figure 16

Simulation results of the impeller RT3, for given flows and rotational speeds after a time of 5.4 s.: simulation variants (a) A, (b) B, (c) C, (d) D, (e) E, and (f) F.

CFD results are presented for all analyzed variants (impeller RT3) at two selected calculation timesteps of 1 and 5.40 s. They show the velocity field of the medium (water) and the dispersion of gas bubbles.

Figure 15 shows the initial refining phase after 1 s of the process. In this case, the gas bubble formation and flow were observed in an area close to contact with the rotor. Figure 16 shows the phase when the dispersion and flow of gas bubbles were advanced in the reactor area of the URO-200 model.

The quantitative evaluation of the obtained results of physical and numerical model tests was based on the comparison of the degree of gas dispersion in the model liquid. The degree of gas bubble dispersion in the volume of the model liquid and the areas of strong turbulent zones formation were evaluated during the analysis of the results of visualization and numerical simulations. These two effects sufficiently characterize the required course of the process from the physical point of view. The known scheme of the below description was adopted as a basic criterion for the evaluation of the degree of dispersion of gas bubbles in the model liquid.

Minimal dispersion—single bubbles ascending in the region of their formation along the ladle axis; lack of mixing in the whole bath volume.
Accurate dispersion—single and well-mixed bubbles ascending toward the bath mirror in the region of the ladle axis; no dispersion near the walls and in the lower part of the ladle.
Uniform dispersion—most desirable; very good mixing of fine bubbles with model liquid.
Excessive dispersion—bubbles join together to form chains; large turbulence zones; uneven flow of gas.

The numerical simulation results give a good agreement with the experiments performed with the physical model. For all studied variants (used process parameters), the single bubbles were observed in the area of water surface in the vessel. For variants presented in Figure 13 (200 rpm, gas flow 20 and dm³·min⁻¹) and relevant examples in numerical simulation Figure 16, the worst bubble dispersion results were obtained because the dead zones were identified in the area near the bottom and sidewalls of the vessel, which disqualifies these work parameters for further use. The areas where swirls and gas bubble chains formed were identified only for the inert gas flows of 20 and 30 dm³·min⁻¹ and 200 rpm in the analyzed model (physical model). This means that the presented impeller model had the best performance in terms of dispersion of gas bubbles in the model liquid. The worst bubble dispersion results were obtained because the dead zones were identified in the area near the bottom and side walls of the vessel, which disqualifies these work parameters for further use.

Figure 17 presents exemplary results of model tests (CFD and physical model) with marked gas bubble dispersion zones. All variants of tests were analogously compared, and this comparison allowed validating the numerical model.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-05273-g017.jpg

Figure 17

Compilations of model research results (CFD and physical): A—single gas bubbles formed on the surface of the modeling liquid, B—excessive formation of gas chains and swirls, C—uniform distribution of gas bubbles in the entire volume of the tank, and D—dead zones without gas bubbles, no dispersion. (a) Variant B; (b) variant F.

It should be mentioned here that, in numerical simulations, it is necessary to make certain assumptions and simplifications. The calculations assumed three particle size classes (Table 2), which represent the different gas bubbles that form due to different gas flow rates. The maximum number of particles/bubbles (Table 1) generated was assumed in advance and related to the computational capabilities of the computer. Too many particles can also make it difficult to visualize and analyze the results. The size of the particles, of course, affects their behavior during simulation, while, in the figures provided in the article, the bubbles are represented by spheres (visualization of the results) of the same size. Please note that, due to the adopted Lagrangian–Eulerian approach, the simulation did not take into account phenomena such as bubble collapse or fusion. However, the obtained results allow a comprehensive analysis of the behavior of gas bubbles in the system under consideration.

The comparative analysis of the visualization (quantitative) results obtained with the water model and CFD simulations (see Figure 17) generated a sufficient agreement from the point of view of the trends. A precise quantitative evaluation is difficult to perform because of the lack of a refraction compensating system in the water model. Furthermore, in numerical simulations, it is not possible to determine the geometry of the forming gas bubbles and their interaction with each other as opposed to the visualization in the water model. The use of both research methods is complementary. Thus, a direct comparison of images obtained by the two methods requires appropriate interpretation. However, such an assessment gives the possibility to qualitatively determine the types of the present gas bubble dispersion, thus ultimately validating the CFD results with the water model.

A summary of the visualization results for impellers RT3, i.e., analysis of the occurring gas bubble dispersion types, is presented in Table 8.

Table 8

Summary of visualization results (impeller RT3)—different types of gas bubble dispersion.

No Exp.	A	B	C	D	E	F
Gas flow rate, dm³·min⁻¹	10	30
Impeller speed, rpm	200	300	500	200	300	500
Type of dispersion	Accurate	Uniform	Uniform/excessive	Minimal	Excessive	Excessive

Tests carried out for impeller RT3 confirmed the high efficiency of gas bubble distribution in the volume of the tested object at a low inert gas flow rate of 10 dm³·min⁻¹. The most optimal variant was variant B (300 rpm, 10 dm³·min⁻¹). However, the other variants A and C (gas flow rate 10 dm³·min⁻¹) seemed to be favorable for this type of impeller and are recommended for further testing. The above process parameters will be analyzed in detail in a quantitative analysis to be performed on the basis of the obtained efficiency curves of the degassing process (oxygen removal). This analysis will give an unambiguous answer as to which process parameters are the most optimal for this type of impeller; the results are planned for publication in the next article.

It should also be noted here that the high agreement between the results of numerical calculations and physical modelling prompts a conclusion that the proposed approach to the simulation of a degassing process which consists of a single-phase flow model with a free surface and a particle flow model is appropriate. The simulation results enable us to understand how the velocity field in the fluid is formed and to analyze the distribution of gas bubbles in the system. The simulations in Flow-3D software can, therefore, be useful for both the design of the impeller geometry and the selection of process parameters.

4. Conclusions

The results of experiments carried out on the physical model of the device for the simulation of barbotage refining of aluminum revealed that the worst results in terms of distribution and dispersion of gas bubbles in the studied object were obtained for the black impellers variants B4, B8, and B12 (multi-orifice impellers—four, eight, and 12 outlet holes, respectively).

In this case, the control of flow, speed, and number of gas exit orifices did not improve the process efficiency, and the developed design did not meet the criteria for industrial tests. In the case of the ‘red triangle’ impeller (variant RT3), uniform gas bubble dispersion was achieved throughout the volume of the modeling fluid for most of the tested variants. The worst bubble dispersion results due to the occurrence of the so-called dead zones in the area near the bottom and sidewalls of the vessel were obtained for the flow variants of 20 dm³·min⁻¹ and 200 rpm and 30 dm³·min⁻¹ and 200 rpm. For the analyzed model, areas where swirls and gas bubble chains were formed were found only for the inert gas flow of 20 and 30 dm³·min⁻¹ and 200 rpm. The model impeller (variant RT3) had the best performance compared to the previously presented impellers in terms of dispersion of gas bubbles in the model liquid. Moreover, its design differed from previously presented models because of its sharp edges. This can be advantageous for gas bubble dispersion, but may negatively affect its suitability in industrial conditions due to premature wearing.

The CFD simulation results confirmed the results obtained from the experiments performed on the physical model. The numerical simulation of the operation of the ‘red triangle’ impeller model (using Flow-3D software) gave good agreement with the experiments performed on the physical model. This means that the presented model impeller, as compared to other (analyzed) designs, had the best performance in terms of gas bubble dispersion in the model liquid.

In further work, the developed numerical model is planned to be used for CFD simulations of the gas bubble distribution process taking into account physicochemical parameters of liquid aluminum based on industrial tests. Consequently, the obtained results may be implemented in production practice.

Funding Statement

This paper was created with the financial support grants from the AGH-UST, Faculty of Foundry Engineering, Poland (16.16.170.654 and 11/990/BK_22/0083) for the Faculty of Materials Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Poland.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K. and D.K.; methodology, J.P. and T.M.; validation, M.S. and S.G.; formal analysis, D.K. and T.M.; investigation, J.P., K.K. and S.G.; resources, M.S., J.P. and K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K. and T.M.; writing—review and editing, D.K. and T.M.; visualization, J.P., K.K. and S.G.; supervision, D.K.; funding acquisition, D.K. and T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1. Zhang L., Xuewei L., Torgerson A.T., Long M. Removal of Impurity Elements from Molten Aluminium: A Review. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 2011;32:150–228. doi: 10.1080/08827508.2010.483396. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Saternus M. Impurities of liquid aluminium-methods on their estimation and removal. Met. Form. 2015;23:115–132. [Google Scholar]

3. Żak P.L., Kalisz D., Lelito J., Gracz B., Szucki M., Suchy J.S. Modelling of non-metallic particle motion process in foundry alloys. Metalurgija. 2015;54:357–360. [Google Scholar]

4. Kalisz D., Kuglin K. Efficiency of aluminum oxide inclusions rmoval from liquid steel as a result of collisions and agglomeration on ceramic filters. Arch. Foundry Eng. 2020;20:43–48. [Google Scholar]

5. Kuglin K., Kalisz D. Evaluation of the usefulness of rotors for aluminium refining. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021;1178:012036. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1178/1/012036. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Saternus M., Merder T. Physical modeling of the impeller construction impact o the aluminium refining process. Materials. 2022;15:575. doi: 10.3390/ma15020575. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Saternus M., Merder T. Physical modelling of aluminum refining process conducted in batch reactor with rotary impeller. Metals. 2018;8:726. doi: 10.3390/met8090726. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Saternus M., Merder T., Pieprzyca J. The influence of impeller geometry on the gas bubbles dispersion in uro-200 reactor—RTD curves. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2015;60:2887–2893. doi: 10.1515/amm-2015-0461. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Hernández-Hernández M., Camacho-Martínez J., González-Rivera C., Ramírez-Argáez M.A. Impeller design assisted by physical modeling and pilot plant trials. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2016;236:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.04.031. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Mancilla E., Cruz-Méndez W., Garduño I.E., González-Rivera C., Ramírez-Argáez M.A., Ascanio G. Comparison of the hydrodynamic performance of rotor-injector devices in a water physical model of an aluminum degassing ladle. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017;118:158–169. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2016.11.031. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Michalek K., Socha L., Gryc K., Tkadleckova M., Saternus M., Pieprzyca J., Merder T. Modelling of technological parameters of aluminium melt refining in the ladle by blowing of inert gas through the rotating impeller. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2018;63:987–992. [Google Scholar]

12. Walek J., Michalek K., Tkadlecková M., Saternus M. Modelling of Technological Parameters of Aluminium Melt Refining in the Ladle by Blowing of Inert Gas through the Rotating Impeller. Metals. 2021;11:284. doi: 10.3390/met11020284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Michalek K., Gryc K., Moravka J. Physical modelling of bath homogenization in argon stirred ladle. Metalurgija. 2009;48:215–218. [Google Scholar]

14. Michalek K. The Use of Physical Modeling and Numerical Optimization for Metallurgical Processes. VSB; Ostrawa, Czech Republic: 2001. [Google Scholar]

15. Chen J., Zhao J. Light Metals. TMS; Warrendale, PA, USA: 1995. Bubble distribution in a melt treatment water model; pp. 1227–1231. [Google Scholar]

16. Saternus M. Model Matematyczny do Sterowania Procesem Rafinacji Ciekłych Stopów Aluminium Przy Zastosowaniu URO-200. Katowice, Poland: 2004. Research Project Nr 7 T08B 019 21. [Google Scholar]

17. Pietrewicz L., Wężyk W. Urządzenia do rafinacji gazowej typu URO-200 sześć lat produkcji i doświadczeń; Proceedings of the Aluminum Conference; Zakopane, Poland. 12–16 October 1998. [Google Scholar]

18. Flow3d User’s Guide. Flow Science, Inc.; Santa Fe, NM, USA: 2020. [Google Scholar]

19. Sinelnikov V., Szucki M., Merder T., Pieprzyca J., Kalisz D. Physical and numerical modeling of the slag splashing process. Materials. 2021;14:2289. doi: 10.3390/ma14092289. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. White F. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY, USA: 2010. (McGraw-Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering). [Google Scholar]

21. Yang Z., Yang L., Cheng T., Chen F., Zheng F., Wang S., Guo Y. Fluid Flow Characteristic of EAF Molten Steel with Different Bottom-Blowing Gas Flow Rate Distributions. ISIJ. 2020;60:1957–1967. doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2019-794. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Nichols B.D., Hirt C.W. Methods for calculating multi-dimensional, transient free surface flows past bodies; Proceedings of the First International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics; Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 20–22 October 1975. [Google Scholar]

23. Hirt C.W., Nichols B.D. Volume of Fluid (VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 1981;39:201–255. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Szucki M., Suchy J.S., Lelito J., Malinowski P., Sobczyk J. Application of the lattice Boltzmann method for simulation of the mold filling process in the casting industry. Heat Mass Transf. 2017;53:3421–3431. doi: 10.1007/s00231-017-2069-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Themelis N.J., Goyal P. Gas injection in steelmaking. Candian Metall. Trans. 1983;22:313–320. [Google Scholar]

26. Zhang L., Jing X., Li Y., Xu Z., Cai K. Mathematical model of decarburization of ultralow carbon steel during RH treatment. J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing. 1997;4:19–23. [Google Scholar]

27. Chiti F., Paglianti A., Bujalshi W. A mechanistic model to estimate powder consumption and mixing time in aluminium industries. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2004;82:1105–1111. doi: 10.1205/cerd.82.9.1105.44156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Bouaifi M., Roustan M. Power consumption, mixing time and homogenization energy in dual-impeller agitated gas-liquid reactors. Chem. Eng. Process. 2011;40:87–95. doi: 10.1016/S0255-2701(00)00128-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Kang J., Lee C.H., Haam S., Koo K.K., Kim W.S. Studies on the overall oxygen transfer rate and mixing time in pilot-scale surface aeration vessel. Environ. Technol. 2001;22:1055–1068. doi: 10.1080/09593332208618215. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Moucha T., Linek V., Prokopov E. Gas hold-up, mixing time and gas-liquid volumetric mass transfer coefficient of various multiple-impeller configurations: Rushton turbine, pitched blade and techmix impeller and their combinations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2003;58:1839–1846. doi: 10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00682-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Szekely J. Flow phenomena, mixing and mass transfer in argon-stirred ladles. Ironmak. Steelmak. 1979;6:285–293. [Google Scholar]

32. Iguchi M., Nakamura K., Tsujino R. Mixing time and fluid flow phenomena in liquids of varying kinematic viscosities agitated by bottom gas injection. Metall. Mat. Trans. 1998;29:569–575. doi: 10.1007/s11663-998-0091-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Hjelle O., Engh T.A., Rasch B. Removal of Sodium from Aluminiummagnesium Alloys by Purging with Cl₂. Aluminium-Verlag GmbH; Dusseldorf, Germany: 1985. pp. 343–360. [Google Scholar]

34. Zhang L., Taniguchi S. Fundamentals of inclusion removal from liquid steel by bubble flotation. Int. Mat. Rev. 2000;45:59–82. doi: 10.1179/095066000101528313. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

원문 보기

Fig. 5. The predicted shapes of initial breach (a) Rectangular (b) V-notch. Fig. 6. Dam breaching stages.

Investigating the peak outflow through a spatial embankment dam breach

공간적 제방댐 붕괴를 통한 최대 유출량 조사

Mahmoud T.Ghonim Magdy H.Mowafy Mohamed N.Salem AshrafJatwaryFaculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt

Abstract

Investigating the breach outflow hydrograph is an essential task to conduct mitigation plans and flood warnings. In the present study, the spatial dam breach is simulated by using a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics model, FLOW-3D. The model parameters were adjusted by making a comparison with a previous experimental model. The different parameters (initial breach shape, dimensions, location, and dam slopes) are studied to investigate their effects on dam breaching. The results indicate that these parameters have a significant impact. The maximum erosion rate and peak outflow for the rectangular shape are higher than those for the V-notch by 8.85% and 5%, respectively. Increasing breach width or decreasing depth by 5% leads to increasing maximum erosion rate by 11% and 15%, respectively. Increasing the downstream slope angle by 4° leads to an increase in both peak outflow and maximum erosion rate by 2.0% and 6.0%, respectively.

유출 유출 수문곡선을 조사하는 것은 완화 계획 및 홍수 경보를 수행하는 데 필수적인 작업입니다. 본 연구에서는 3차원 전산유체역학 모델인 FLOW-3D를 사용하여 공간 댐 붕괴를 시뮬레이션합니다. 이전 실험 모델과 비교하여 모델 매개변수를 조정했습니다.

다양한 매개변수(초기 붕괴 형태, 치수, 위치 및 댐 경사)가 댐 붕괴에 미치는 영향을 조사하기 위해 연구됩니다. 결과는 이러한 매개변수가 상당한 영향을 미친다는 것을 나타냅니다. 직사각형 형태의 최대 침식율과 최대 유출량은 V-notch보다 각각 8.85%, 5% 높게 나타났습니다.

위반 폭을 늘리거나 깊이를 5% 줄이면 최대 침식률이 각각 11% 및 15% 증가합니다. 하류 경사각을 4° 증가시키면 최대 유출량과 최대 침식률이 각각 2.0% 및 6.0% 증가합니다.

Keywords

Spatial dam breach; FLOW-3D; Overtopping erosion; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

1. Introduction

There are many purposes for dam construction, such as protection from flood disasters, water storage, and power generation. Embankment failures may have a catastrophic impact on lives and infrastructure in the downstream regions. One of the most common causes of embankment dam failure is overtopping. Once the overtopping of the dam begins, the breach formation will start in the dam body then end with the dam failure. This failure occurs within a very short time, which threatens to be very dangerous. Therefore, understanding and modeling the embankment breaching processes is essential for conducting mitigation plans, flood warnings, and forecasting flood damage.

The analysis of the dam breaching process is implemented by different techniques: comparative methods, empirical models with dimensional and dimensionless solutions, physical-based models, and parametric models. These models were described in detail [1]. Parametric modeling is commonly used to simulate breach growth as a time-dependent linear process and calculate outflow discharge from the breach using hydraulics principles [2]. Alhasan et al. [3] presented a simple one-dimensional mathematical model and a computer code to simulate the dam breaching process. These models were validated by small dams breaching during the floods in 2002 in the Czech Republic. Fread [4] developed an erosion model (BREACH) based on hydraulics principles, sediment transport, and soil mechanics to estimate breach size, time of formation, and outflow discharge. Říha et al. [5] investigated the dam break process for a cascade of small dams using a simple parametric model for piping and overtopping erosion, as well as a 2D shallow-water flow model for the flood in downstream areas. Goodarzi et al. [6] implemented mathematical and statistical methods to assess the effect of inflows and wind speeds on the dam’s overtopping failure.

Dam breaching studies can be divided into two main modes of erosion. The first mode is called “planar dam breach” where the flow overtops the whole dam width. While the second mode is called “spatial dam breach” where the flow overtops through the initial pilot channel (i.e., a channel created in the dam body). Therefore, the erosion will be in both vertical and horizontal directions [7].

The erosion process through the embankment dams occurs due to the shear stress applied by water flows. The dam breaching evolution can be divided into three stages [8], [9], but Y. Yang et al. [10] divided the breach development into five stages: Stage I, the seepage erosion; Stage II, the initial breach formation; Stage III, the head erosion; Stage IV, the breach expansion; and Stage V, the re-equilibrium of the river channel through the breach. Many experimental tests have been carried out on non-cohesive embankment dams with an initial breach to examine the effect of upstream inflow discharges on the longitudinal profile evolution and the time to inflection point [11].

Zhang et al. [12] studied the effect of changing downstream slope angle, sediment grain size, and dam crest length on erosion rates. They noticed that increasing dam crest length and decreasing downstream slope angle lead to decreasing sediment transport rate. While the increase in sediment grain size leads to an increased sediment transport rate at the initial stages. Höeg et al. [13] presented a series of field tests to investigate the stability of embankment dams made of various materials. Overtopping and piping were among the failure tests carried out for the dams composed of homogeneous rock-fill, clay, or gravel with a height of up to 6.0 m. Hakimzadeh et al. [14] constructed 40 homogeneous cohesive and non-cohesive embankment dams to study the effect of changing sediment diameter and dam height on the breaching process. They also used genetic programming (GP) to estimate the breach outflow. Refaiy et al. [15] studied different scenarios for the downstream drain geometry, such as length, height, and angle, to minimize the effect of piping phenomena and therefore increase dam safety.

Zhu et al. [16] examined the effect of headcut erosion on dam breach growth, especially in the case of cohesive dams. They found that the breach growth in non-cohesive embankments is slower than cohesive embankments due to the little effect of headcut. Schmocker and Hager [7] proposed a relationship for estimating peak outflow from the dam breach process.(1)QpQin-1=1.7exp-20hc23d5013H0

where: Q_p = peak outflow discharge.

Q_in = inflow discharge.

h_c = critical flow depth.

d₅₀ = mean sediment diameter.

H_o = initial dam height.

Yu et al. [17] carried out an experimental study for homogeneous non-cohesive embankment dams in a 180° bending rectangular flume to determine the effect of overtopping flows on breaching formation. They found that the main factors influencing breach formation are water level, river discharge, and embankment material diameter.

Wu et al. [18] carried out a series of experiments to investigate the effect of breaching geometry on both non-cohesive and cohesive embankment dams in a U-bend flume due to overtopping flows. In the case of non-cohesive embankments, the non-symmetrical lateral expansion was noticed during the breach formation. This expansion was described by a coefficient ranging from 2.7 to 3.3.

The numerical models of the dam breach can be categorized according to different parameters, such as flow dimensions (1D, 2D, or 3D), flow governing equations, and solution methods. The 1D models are mainly used to predict the outflow hydrograph from the dam breach. Saberi et al. [19] applied the 1D Saint-Venant equation, which is solved by the finite difference method to investigate the outflow hydrograph during dam overtopping failure. Because of the ability to study dam profile evolution and breach formation, 2D models are more applicable than 1D models. Guan et al. [20] and Wu et al. [21] employed both 2D shallow water equations (SWEs) and sediment erosion equations, which are solved by the finite volume method to study the effect of the dam’s geometry parameters on outflow hydrograph and dam profile evolution. Wang et al. [22] also proposed a second-order hybrid-type of total variation diminishing (TVD) finite-difference to estimate the breach outflow by solving the 2D (SWEs). The accuracy of (SWEs) for both vertical flow contraction and surface roughness has been assessed [23]. They noted that the accuracy of (SWEs) is acceptable for milder slopes, but in the case of steeper slopes, modelers should be more careful. Generally, the accuracy of 2D models is still low, especially with velocity distribution over the flow depth, lateral momentum exchange, density-driven flows, and bottom friction [24]. Therefore, 3D models are preferred. Larocque et al. [25] and Yang et al. [26] started to use three-dimensional (3D) models that depend on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations.

Previous experimental studies concluded that there is no clear relationship between the peak outflow from the dam breach and the initial breach characteristics. Some of these studies depend on the sharp-crested weir fixed at the end of the flume to determine the peak outflow from the breach, which leads to a decrease in the accuracy of outflow calculations at the microscale. The main goals of this study are to carry out a numerical simulation for a spatial dam breach due to overtopping flows by using (FLOW-3D) software to find an empirical equation for the peak outflow discharge from the breach and determine the worst-case that leads to accelerating the dam breaching process.

2. Numerical simulation

The current study for spatial dam breach is simulated by using (FLOW-3D) software [27], which is a powerful computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program.

2.1. Geometric presentations

A stereolithographic (STL) file is prepared for each change in the initial breach geometry and dimensions. The CAD program is useful for creating solid objects and converting them to STL format, as shown in Fig. 1.

2.2. Governing equations

The governing equations for water flow are three-dimensional Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS).

The continuity equation:(2)∂ui∂xi=0

The momentum equation:(3)∂ui∂t+1VFuj∂ui∂xj=1ρ∂∂xj-pδij+ν∂ui∂xj+∂uj∂xi-ρu`iu`j¯

where u is time-averaged velocity,ν is kinematic viscosity, VF is fractional volume open to flow, p is averaged pressure and -u`iu`j¯ are components of Reynold’s stress. The Volume of Fluid (VOF) technique is used to simulate the free surface profile. Hirt et al. [28] presented the VOF algorithm, which employs the function (F) to express the occupancy of each grid cell with fluid. The value of (F) varies from zero to unity. Zero value refers to no fluid in the grid cell, while the unity value refers to the grid cell being fully occupied with fluid. The free surface is formed in the grid cells having (F) values between zero and unity.(4)∂F∂t+1VF∂∂xFAxu+∂∂yFAyv+∂∂zFAzw=0

where (u, v, w) are the velocity components in (x, y, z) coordinates, respectively, and (A_x, A_y, A_z) are the area fractions.

2.3. Boundary and initial conditions

To improve the accuracy of the results, the boundary conditions should be carefully determined. In this study, two mesh blocks are used to minimize the time consumed in the simulation. The boundary conditions for mesh block 1 are as follows: The inlet and sides boundaries are defined as a wall boundary condition (wall boundary condition is usually used for bound fluid by solid regions. In the case of viscous flows, no-slip means that the tangential velocity is equal to the wall velocity and the normal velocity is zero), the outlet is defined as a symmetry boundary condition (symmetry boundary condition is usually used to reduce computational effort during CFD simulation. This condition allows the flow to be transferred from one mesh block to another. No inputs are required for this boundary condition except that its location should be defined accurately), the bottom boundary is defined as a uniform flow rate boundary condition, and the top boundary is defined as a specific pressure boundary condition with assigned atmospheric pressure. The boundary conditions for mesh block 2 are as follows: The inlet is defined as a symmetry boundary condition, the outlet is defined as a free flow boundary condition, the bottom and sides boundaries are defined as a wall boundary condition, and the top boundary is defined as a specific pressure boundary condition with assigned atmospheric pressure as shown in Fig. 2. The initial conditions required to be set for the fluid (i.e., water) inside of the domain include configuration, temperature, velocities, and pressure distribution. The configuration of water depends on the dimensions and shape of the dam reservoir. While the other conditions have been assigned as follows: temperature is normal water temperature (25 °c) and pressure distribution is hydrostatic with no initial velocity.

2.4. Numerical method

FLOW-3D uses the finite volume method (FVM) to solve the governing equation (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes) over the computational domain. A finite-volume method is an Eulerian approach for representing and evaluating partial differential equations in algebraic equations form [29]. At discrete points on the mesh geometry, values are determined. Finite volume expresses a small volume surrounding each node point on a mesh. In this method, the divergence theorem is used to convert volume integrals with a divergence term to surface integrals. After that, these terms are evaluated as fluxes at each finite volume’s surfaces.

2.5. Turbulent models

Turbulence is the chaotic, unstable motion of fluids that occurs when there are insufficient stabilizing viscous forces. In FLOW-3D, there are six turbulence models available: the Prandtl mixing length model, the one-equation turbulent energy model, the two-equation (k – ε) model, the Renormalization-Group (RNG) model, the two-equation (k – ω) models, and a large eddy simulation (LES) model. For simulating flow motion, the RNG model is adopted to simulate the motion behavior better than the k – ε and k – ω.

models [30]. The RNG model consists of two main equations for the turbulent kinetic energy KT and its dissipation.εT(5)∂kT∂t+1VFuAx∂kT∂x+vAy∂kT∂y+wAz∂kT∂z=PT+GT+DiffKT-εT(6)∂εT∂t+1VFuAx∂εT∂x+vAy∂εT∂y+wAz∂εT∂z=C1.εTKTPT+c3.GT+Diffε-c2εT2kT

where KT is the turbulent kinetic energy, PT is the turbulent kinetic energy production, GT is the buoyancy turbulence energy, εT is the turbulent energy dissipation rate, DiffKT and Diffε are terms of diffusion, c1, c2 and c3 are dimensionless parameters, in which c1 and c3 have a constant value of 1.42 and 0.2, respectively, c2 is computed from the turbulent kinetic energy (KT) and turbulent production (PT) terms.

2.6. Sediment scour model

The sediment scour model available in FLOW-3D can calculate all the sediment transport processes including Entrainment transport, Bedload transport, Suspended transport, and Deposition. The erosion process starts once the water flows remove the grains from the packed bed and carry them into suspension. It happens when the applied shear stress by water flows exceeds critical shear stress. This process is represented by entrainment transport in the numerical model. After entrained, the grains carried by water flow are represented by suspended load transport. After that, some suspended grains resort to settling because of the combined effect of gravity, buoyancy, and friction. This process is described through a deposition. Finally, the grains sliding motions are represented by bedload transport in the model. For the entrainment process, the shear stress applied by the fluid motion on the packed bed surface is calculated using the standard wall function as shown in Eq.7.(7)ks,i=Cs,i∗d50

where ks,i is the Nikuradse roughness and Cs,i is a user-defined coefficient. The critical bed shear stress is defined by a dimensionless parameter called the critical shields number as expressed in Eq.8.(8)θcr,i=τcr,i‖g‖diρi-ρf

where θcr,i is the critical shields number, τcr,i is the critical bed shear stress, g is the absolute value of gravity acceleration, di is the diameter of the sediment grain, ρi is the density of the sediment species (i) and ρf is the density of the fluid. The value of the critical shields number is determined according to the Soulsby-Whitehouse equation.(9)θcr,i=0.31+1.2d∗,i+0.0551-exp-0.02d∗,i

where d∗,i is the dimensionless diameter of the sediment, given by Eq.10.(10)d∗,i=diρfρi-ρf‖g‖μf213

where μf is the fluid dynamic viscosity. For the sloping bed interface, the value of the critical shields number is modified according to Eq.11.(11)θ`cr,i=θcr,icosψsinβ+cos2βtan2φi-sin2ψsin2βtanφi

where θ`cr,i is the modified critical shields number, φi is the angle of repose for the sediment, β is the angle of bed slope and ψ is the angle between the flow and the upslope direction. The effects of the rolling, hopping, and sliding motions of grains along the packed bed surface are taken by the bedload transport process. The volumetric bedload transport rate (qb,i) per width of the bed is expressed in Eq.12.(12)qb,i=Φi‖g‖ρi-ρfρfdi312

where Φi is the dimensionless bedload transport rate is calculated by using Meyer Peter and Müller equation.(13)Φi=βMPM,iθi-θ`cr,i1.5cb,i

where βMPM,i is the Meyer Peter and Müller user-defined coefficient and cb,i is the volume fraction of species i in the bed material. The suspended load transport is calculated as shown in Eq.14.(14)∂Cs,i∂t+∇∙Cs,ius,i=∇∙∇DCs,i

where Cs,i is the suspended sediment mass concentration, D is the diffusivity, and us,i is the grain velocity of species i. Entrainment and deposition are two opposing processes that take place at the same time. The lifting and settling velocities for both entrainment and deposition processes are calculated according to Eq.15 and Eq.16, respectively.(15)ulifting,i=αid∗,i0.3θi-θ`cr,igdiρiρf-1(16)usettling,i=υfdi10.362+1.049d∗,i3-10.36

where αi is the entrainment coefficient of species i and υf is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.

2.7. Grid type

Using simple rectangular orthogonal elements in planes and hexahedral in volumes in the (FLOW-3D) program makes the mesh generation process easier, decreases the required memory, and improves numerical accuracy. Two mesh blocks were used in a joined form with a size ratio of 2:1. The first mesh block is coarser, which contains the reservoir water, and the second mesh block is finer, which contains the dam. For achieving accuracy and efficiency in results, the mesh size is determined by using a grid convergence test. The optimum uniform cell size for the first mesh block is 0.012 m and for the second mesh block is 0.006 m.

2.8. Time step

The maximum time step size is determined by using a Courant number, which controls the distance that the flow will travel during the simulation time step. In this study, the Courant number was taken equal to 0.25 to prevent the flow from traveling through more than one cell in the time step. Based on the Courant number, a maximum time step value of 0.00075 s was determined.

2.9. Numerical model validation

The numerical model accuracy was achieved by comparing the numerical model results with previous experimental results. The experimental study of Schmocker and Hager [7] was based on 31 tests with changes in six parameters (d₅₀, H_o, B_o, L_k, X_D, and Q_in). All experimental tests were conducted in a straight open glass-sided flume. The horizontal flume has a rectangular cross-section with a width of 0.4 m and a height of 0.7 m. The flume was provided with a flow straightener and an intake with a length of 0.66 m. All tested dams were inserted at various distances (X_D) from the intake. Test No.1 from this experimental program was chosen to validate the numerical model. The different parameters used in test No.1 are as follows:

(1) uniform sediment with a mean diameter (d₅₀ = 0.31 mm), (2) H_o = 0.2 m, (3) B_o = 0.2 m, (4) L_k = 0.1 m,

(5) X_D = 1.0 m, (6) Q_in = 6.0 lit/s, (7) S_u and S_d = 2:1, (8) mass density (ρ_s = 2650 kg/m³) (9) Homogenous and non-cohesive embankment dam. As shown in Fig. 2, the simulation is contained within a rectangular grid with dimensions: 3.56 m in the x-direction (where 0.66 m is used as inlet, 0.9 m as dam base width, and 1.0 m as outlet), in y-direction 0.2 m (dam length), and in the z-direction 0.3 m, which represents the dam height (0.2 m) with a free distance (0.1 m) above the dam. There are two main reasons that this experimental program is preferred for the validation process. The first reason is that this program deals with homogenous, non-cohesive soil, which is available in FLOW-3D. The second reason is that this program deals with small-scale models which saves time for numerical simulation. Finally, some important assumptions were considered during the validation process. The flow is assumed to be incompressible, viscous, turbulent, and three-dimensional.

By comparing dam profiles at different time instants for the experimental test with the current numerical model, it appears that the numerical model gives good agreement as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, with an average error percentage of 9% between the experimental results and the numerical model.

3. Analysis and discussions

The current model is used to study the effects of different parameters such as (initial breach shapes, dimensions, locations, upstream and downstream dam slopes) on the peak outflow discharge, Q_P, time of peak outflow, t_P, and rate of erosion, E.

This study consists of a group of scenarios. The first scenario is changing the shapes of the initial breach according to Singh [1], the most predicted shapes are rectangular and V-notch as shown in Fig. 5. The second scenario is changing the initial breach dimensions (i.e., width and depth). While the third scenario is changing the location of the initial breach. Eventually, the last scenario is changing the upstream and downstream dam slopes.

All scenarios of this study were carried out under the same conditions such as inflow discharge value (Qin=1.0lit/s), dimensions of the tested dam, where dam height (Ho=0.20m), crest width.

(Lk=0.1m), dam length (Bo=0.20m), and homogenous & non-cohesive soil with a mean diameter (d50=0.31mm).

3.1. Dam breaching process evolution

The dam breaching process is a very complex process due to the quick changes in hydrodynamic conditions during dam failure. The dam breaching process starts once water flows reach the downstream face of the dam. During the initial stage of dam breaching, the erosion process is relatively quiet due to low velocities of flow. As water flows continuously, erosion rates increase, especially in two main zones: the crest and the downstream face. As soon as the dam crest is totally eroded, the water levels in the dam reservoir decrease rapidly, accompanied by excessive erosion in the dam body. The erosion process continues until the water levels in the dam reservoir equal the remaining height of the dam.

According to Zhou et al. [11], the breaching process consists of three main stages. The first stage starts with beginning overtopping flow, then ends when the erosion point directed upstream and reached the inflection point at the inflection time (ti). The second stage starts from the end of the stage1 until the occurrence of peak outflow discharge at the peak outflow time (tP). The third stage starts from the end of the stage2 until the value of outflow discharge becomes the same as the value of inflow discharge at the final time (tf). The outflow discharge from the dam breach increases rapidly during stage1 and stage2 because of the large dam storage capacity (i.e., the dam reservoir is totally full of water) and excessive erosion. While at stage3, the outflow values start to decrease slowly because most of the dam’s storage capacity was run out. The end of stage3 indicates that the dam storage capacity was totally run out, so the outflow equalized with the inflow discharge as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.

3.2. The effect of initial breach shape

To identify the effect of the initial breach shape on the evolution of the dam breaching process. Three tests were carried out with different cross-section areas for each shape. The initial breach is created at the center of the dam crest. Each test had an ID to make the process of arranging data easier. The rectangular shape had an ID (Rec5h & 5b), which means that its depth and width are equal to 5% of the dam height, and the V-notch shape had an ID (V-noch5h & 1:1) which means that its depth is equal to 5% of the dam height and its side slope is equal to 1:1. The comparison between rectangular and V-notch shapes is done by calculating the ratio between maximum dam height at different times (Z_Max) to the initial dam height (H_o), rate of erosion, and hydrograph of outflow discharge for each test. The rectangular shape achieves maximum erosion rate and minimum inflection time, in addition to a rapid decrease in the dam reservoir levels. Therefore, the dam breaching is faster in the case of a rectangular shape than in a V-notch shape, which has the same cross-section area as shown in Fig. 8.

Also, by comparing the hydrograph for each test, the peak outflow discharge value in the case of a rectangular shape is higher than the V-notch shape by 5% and the time of peak outflow for the rectangular shape is shorter than the V-notch shape by 9% as shown in Fig. 9.

3.3. The effect of initial breach dimensions

The results of the comparison between the different initial breach shapes indicate that the worst initial breach shape is rectangular, so the second scenario from this study concentrated on studying the effect of a change in the initial rectangular breach dimensions. Groups of tests were carried out with different depths and widths for the rectangular initial breach. The first group had a depth of 5% from the dam height and with three different widths of 5,10, and 15% from the dam height, the second group had a depth of 10% with three different widths of 5,10, and 15%, the third group had a depth of 15% with three different widths of 5,10, and 15% and the final group had a width of 15% with three different heights of 5, 10, and 15% for a rectangular breach shape. The comparison was made as in the previous section to determine the worst case that leads to the quick dam failure as shown in Fig. 10.

The results show that the (Rec 5 h&15b) test achieves a maximum erosion rate for a shorter period of time and a minimum ratio for (Z_max / H_o) as shown in Fig. 10, which leads to accelerating the dam failure process. The dam breaching process is faster with the minimum initial breach depth and maximum initial breach width. In the case of a minimum initial breach depth, the retained head of water in the dam reservoir is high and the crest width at the bottom of the initial breach (L`K) is small, so the erosion point reaches the inflection point rapidly. While in the case of the maximum initial breach width, the erosion perimeter is large.

3.4. The effect of initial breach location

The results of the comparison between the different initial rectangular breach dimensions indicate that the worst initial breach dimension is (Rec 5 h&15b), so the third scenario from this study concentrated on studying the effect of a change in the initial breach location. Three locations were checked to determine the worst case for the dam failure process. The first location is at the center of the dam crest, which was named “Center”, the second location is at mid-distance between the dam center and dam edge, which was named “Mid”, and the third location is at the dam edge, which was named “Edge” as shown in Fig. 11. According to this scenario, the results indicate that the time of peak outflow discharge (tP) is the same in the three cases, but the maximum value of the peak outflow discharge occurs at the center location. The difference in the peak outflow values between the three cases is relatively small as shown in Fig. 12.

The rates of erosion were also studied for the three cases. The results show that the maximum erosion rate occurs at the center location as shown in Fig. 13. By making a comparison between the three cases for the dam storage volume. The results show that the center location had the minimum values for the dam storage volume, which means that a large amount of water has passed to the downstream area as shown in Fig. 14. According to these results, the center location leads to increased erosion rate and accelerated dam failure process compared with the two other cases. Because the erosion occurs on both sides, but in the case of edge location, the erosion occurs on one side.

3.5. The effect of upstream and downstream dam slopes

The results of the comparison between the different initial rectangular breach locations indicate that the worst initial breach location is the center location, so the fourth scenario from this study concentrated on studying the effect of a change in the upstream (S_u) and downstream (S_d) dam slopes. Three slopes were checked individually for both upstream and downstream slopes to determine the worst case for the dam failure process. The first slope value is (2H:1V), the second slope value is (2.5H:1V), and the third slope value is (3H:1V). According to this scenario, the results show that the decreasing downstream slope angle leads to increasing time of peak outflow discharge (tP) and decreasing value of peak outflow discharge. The difference in the peak outflow values between the three cases for the downstream slope is 2%, as shown in Fig. 15, but changing the upstream slope has a negligible impact on the peak outflow discharge and its time as shown in Fig. 16.

The rates of erosion were also studied in the three cases for both upstream and downstream slopes. The results show that the maximum erosion rate increases by 6.0% with an increasing downstream slope angle by 4°, as shown in Fig. 17. The results also indicate that the erosion rates aren’t affected by increasing or decreasing the upstream slope angle, as shown in Fig. 18. According to these results, increasing the downstream slope angle leads to increased erosion rate and accelerated dam failure process compared with the upstream slope angle. Because of increasing shear stress applied by water flows in case of increasing downstream slope.

According to all previous scenarios, the dimensionless peak outflow discharge QPQin is presented for a fixed dam height (H_o) and inflow discharge (Q_in). Fig. 19 illustrates the relationship between QP∗=QPQin and.

Lr=ho2/3∗bo2/3Ho. The deduced relationship achieves R2=0.96.(17)QP∗=2.2807exp-2.804∗Lr

4. Conclusions

A spatial dam breaching process was simulated by using FLOW-3D Software. The validation process was performed by making a comparison between the simulated results of dam profiles and the dam profiles obtained by Schmocker and Hager [7] in their experimental study. And also, the peak outflow value recorded an error percentage of 12% between the numerical model and the experimental study. This model was used to study the effect of initial breach shape, dimensions, location, and dam slopes on peak outflow discharge, time of peak outflow, and the erosion process. By using the parameters obtained from the validation process, the results of this study can be summarized in eight points as follows.1.

The rectangular initial breach shape leads to an accelerating dam failure process compared with the V-notch.2.

The value of peak outflow discharge in the case of a rectangular initial breach is higher than the V-notch shape by 5%.3.

The time of peak outflow discharge for a rectangular initial breach is shorter than the V-notch shape by 9%.4.

The minimum depth and maximum width for the initial breach achieve maximum erosion rates (increasing breach width, b0, or decreasing breach depth, h0, by 5% from the dam height leads to an increase in the maximum rate of erosion by 11% and 15%, respectively), so the dam failure is rapid.5.

The center location of the initial breach leads to an accelerating dam failure compared with the edge location.6.

The initial breach location has a negligible effect on the peak outflow discharge value and its time.7.

Increasing the downstream slope angle by 4° leads to an increase in both peak outflow discharge and maximum rate of erosion by 2.0% and 6.0%, respectively.8.

The upstream slope has a negligible effect on the dam breaching process.

References

[1]V. SinghDam breach modeling technologySpringer Science & Business Media (1996)Google Scholar [2]Wahl TL. Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: a literature review and needs assessment. 1998.Google Scholar [3]Z. Alhasan, J. Jandora, J. ŘíhaStudy of dam-break due to overtopping of four small dams in the Czech RepublicActa Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63 (3) (2015), pp. 717-729 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [4]D. FreadBREACH, an erosion model for earthen dam failures: Hydrologic Research LaboratoryNOAA, National Weather Service (1988)Google Scholar [5]J. Říha, S. Kotaška, L. PetrulaDam Break Modeling in a Cascade of Small Earthen Dams: Case Study of the Čižina River in the Czech RepublicWater, 12 (8) (2020), p. 2309, 10.3390/w12082309 View PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [6]E. Goodarzi, L. Teang Shui, M. ZiaeiDam overtopping risk using probabilistic concepts–Case study: The Meijaran DamIran Ain Shams Eng J, 4 (2) (2013), pp. 185-197Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [7]L. Schmocker, W.H. HagerPlane dike-breach due to overtopping: effects of sediment, dike height and dischargeJ Hydraul Res, 50 (6) (2012), pp. 576-586 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [8]J.S. Walder, R.M. Iverson, J.W. Godt, M. Logan, S.A. SolovitzControls on the breach geometry and flood hydrograph during overtopping of noncohesive earthen damsWater Resour Res, 51 (8) (2015), pp. 6701-6724View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [9]H. Wei, M. Yu, D. Wang, Y. LiOvertopping breaching of river levees constructed with cohesive sedimentsNat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 16 (7) (2016), pp. 1541-1551 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [10]Y. Yang, S.-Y. Cao, K.-J. Yang, W.-P. LiYang K-j, Li W-p. Experimental study of breach process of landslide dams by overtopping and its initiation mechanismsJ Hydrodynamics, 27 (6) (2015), pp. 872-883Article Download PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [11]G.G.D. Zhou, M. Zhou, M.S. Shrestha, D. Song, C.E. Choi, K.F.E. Cui, et al.Experimental investigation on the longitudinal evolution of landslide dam breaching and outburst floodsGeomorphology, 334 (2019), pp. 29-43Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [12]J. Zhang, Z.-x. Guo, S.-y. CaoYang F-g. Experimental study on scour and erosion of blocked damWater Sci Eng, 5 (2012), pp. 219-229Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [13]K. Höeg, A. Løvoll, K. VaskinnStability and breaching of embankment dams: Field tests on 6 m high damsInt J Hydropower Dams, 11 (2004), pp. 88-92View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [14]H. Hakimzadeh, V. Nourani, A.B. AminiGenetic programming simulation of dam breach hydrograph and peak outflow dischargeJ Hydrol Eng, 19 (4) (2014), pp. 757-768View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [15]A.R. Refaiy, N.M. AboulAtta, N.Y. Saad, D.A. El-MollaModeling the effect of downstream drain geometry on seepage through earth damsAin Shams Eng J, 12 (3) (2021), pp. 2511-2531Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [16]Y. Zhu, P.J. Visser, J.K. Vrijling, G. WangExperimental investigation on breaching of embankmentsScience China Technological Sci, 54 (1) (2011), pp. 148-155 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [17]M.-H. Yu, H.-Y. Wei, Y.-J. Liang, Y. ZhaoInvestigation of non-cohesive levee breach by overtopping flowJ Hydrodyn, 25 (4) (2013), pp. 572-579Article Download PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [18]S. Wu, M. Yu, H. Wei, Y. Liang, J. ZengNon-symmetrical levee breaching processes in a channel bend due to overtoppingInt J Sedim Res, 33 (2) (2018), pp. 208-215Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [19]O. Saberi, G. ZenzNumerical investigation on 1D and 2D embankment dams failure due to overtopping flowInt J Hydraulic Engineering, 5 (2016), pp. 9-18View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [20]M. Guan, N.G. Wright, P.A. Sleigh2D Process-Based Morphodynamic Model for Flooding by Noncohesive Dyke BreachJ Hydraul Eng, 140 (7) (2014), p. 04014022, 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000861 View PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [21]W. Wu, R. Marsooli, Z. HeDepth-Averaged Two-Dimensional Model of Unsteady Flow and Sediment Transport due to Noncohesive Embankment Break/BreachingJ Hydraul Eng, 138 (6) (2012), pp. 503-516View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [22]Z. Wang, D.S. BowlesThree-dimensional non-cohesive earthen dam breach model. Part 1: Theory and methodologyAdv Water Resour, 29 (10) (2006), pp. 1528-1545Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [23]Říha J, Duchan D, Zachoval Z, Erpicum S, Archambeau P, Pirotton M, et al. Performance of a shallow-water model for simulating flow over trapezoidal broad-crested weirs. J Hydrology Hydromechanics. 2019;67:322-8.Google Scholar [24]C.B. VreugdenhilNumerical methods for shallow-water flowSpringer Science & Business Media (1994)Google Scholar [25]L.A. Larocque, J. Imran, M.H. Chaudhry3D numerical simulation of partial breach dam-break flow using the LES and k–∊ turbulence modelsJ Hydraul Res, 51 (2) (2013), pp. 145-157 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [26]C. Yang, B. Lin, C. Jiang, Y. LiuPredicting near-field dam-break flow and impact force using a 3D modelJ Hydraul Res, 48 (6) (2010), pp. 784-792 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [27]FLOW-3D. Version 11.1.1 Flow Science, Inc., Santa Fe, NM. https://wwwflow3dcom.Google Scholar [28]C.W. Hirt, B.D. NicholsVolume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundariesJ Comput Phys, 39 (1) (1981), pp. 201-225Article Download PDF Google Scholar [29]S.V. PatankarNumerical heat transfer and fluid flow, Hemisphere PublCorp, New York, 58 (1980), p. 288View Record in Scopus Google Scholar [30]M. Alemi, R. MaiaNumerical simulation of the flow and local scour process around single and complex bridge piersInt J Civil Eng, 16 (5) (2018), pp. 475-487 View PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

PDF 전체 원문 보기

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental Engineering (ICCOEE2020)

Numerical Simulation to Assess Floating Instability of Small Passenger Vehicle Under Sub-critical Flow

미 임계 흐름에서 소형 승용차의 부동 불안정성을 평가하기 위한 수치 시뮬레이션

Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental Engineering
ICCOEE 2021: ICCOEE2020 pp 258-265| Cite as

Ebrahim Hamid Hussein Al-Qadami
Zahiraniza Mustaffa
Eduardo Martínez-Gomariz
Khamaruzaman Wan Yusof
Abdurrasheed S. Abdurrasheed
Syed Muzzamil Hussain Shah

Conference paperFirst Online: 01 January 2021

355Downloads

Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 132)

Abstract

Parked vehicles can be directly affected by the floods and at a certain flow velocity and depth, vehicles can be easily swept away. Therefore, studying flooded vehicles stability limits is required. Herein, an attempt has been done to assess numerically the floating instability mode of a small passenger car with a scaled-down ratio of 1:10 using FLOW-3D. The 3D car model was placed inside a closed box and the six degrees of freedom numerical simulation was conducted. Later, numerical results validated experimentally and analytically. Results showed that buoyancy depths were 3.6 and 3.8 cm numerically and experimentally, respectively with a percentage difference of 5.4%. Further, the buoyancy forces were 8.95 N and 8.97 N numerically and analytically, respectively with a percentage difference of 0.2%. With this small difference, it can be concluded that the numerical modeling for such cases using FLOW-3D software can give an acceptable prediction on the vehicle stability limits.

주차된 차량은 홍수의 직접적인 영향을 받을 수 있으며 특정 유속과 깊이에서 차량을 쉽게 쓸어 버릴 수 있습니다. 따라서 침수 차량 안정성 한계를 연구해야 합니다. 여기에서는 FLOW-3D를 사용하여 축소 비율이 1:10 인 소형 승용차의 부동 불안정 모드를 수치 적으로 평가하려는 시도가 이루어졌습니다. 3D 자동차 모델은 닫힌 상자 안에 배치되었고 6 개의 자유도 수치 시뮬레이션이 수행되었습니다. 나중에 수치 결과는 실험적으로 그리고 분석적으로 검증되었습니다. 결과는 부력 깊이가 각각 5.4 %의 백분율 차이로 수치 및 실험적으로 3.6 및 3.8 cm임을 보여 주었다. 또한 부력은 수치적으로 8.95N과 분석적으로 8.97N이었고 백분율 차이는 0.2 %였다. 이 작은 차이로 인해 FLOW-3D 소프트웨어를 사용한 이러한 경우의 수치 모델링은 차량 안정성 한계에 대한 허용 가능한 예측을 제공 할 수 있다는 결론을 내릴 수 있습니다.

Keywords

Floating instability Small passenger car Numerical simulation FLOW-3D Subcritical flowe

References

1.Hung, C.L.J., James, L.A., Carbone, G.J., Williams, J.M.: Impacts of combined land-use and climate change on streamflow in two nested catchments in the southeastern united states. Ecol. Eng. 143, 105665 (2020)CrossRef Google Scholar
2.Bui, D.T., Hoang, N.D., Martínez-Álvarez, F., Ngo, P.T.T., Hoa, P.V., Pham, T.D., Samui, P., Costache, R.: A novel deep learning neural network approach for predicting flash flood susceptibility: a case study at a high frequency tropical storm area. Sci. Total Environ. 701, 134413 (2020)CrossRef Google Scholar
3.Shah, S.M.H., Mustaffa, Z., Martínez-Gomariz, E., Yusof, K.W., Al-Qadami, E.H.H.: A review of safety guidelines for vehicles in floodwaters. Int. J. River Basin Manage. 1–17 (2019)Google Scholar
4.Shah, S.M.H., Mustaffa, Z., Yusof, K.W.: Disasters worldwide and floods in the malaysian region: a brief review. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 10(2), (2017)Google Scholar
5.Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Lin, B., Tan, G.: Numerical assessment of flood hazard risk to people and vehicles in flash floods. Environ. Model Softw. 26(8), 987–998 (2011)CrossRef Google Scholar
6.Bonham, A.J., Hattersley, R.T.: Low level causeways. Technical report, University of New South Wales, Water Research Laboratory (1967)Google Scholar
7.Gordon, A.D., Stone, P.B.: Car stability on road causeways. Technical report No. 73/12, Institution (1973)Google Scholar
8.Keller, R.J., Mitsch, B.: Safety aspects of the design of roadways as floodways. Research Report No. 69, Urban Water Research Association of Australia, Melbourne (1993)Google Scholar
9.Shah, S.M.H., Mustaffa, Z., Martinez-Gomariz, E., Kim, D.K., Yusof, K.W.: Criterion of vehicle instability in floodwaters: past, present and future. Int. J. River Basin Manage. 1–23 (2019)Google Scholar
10.Teo, F.Y.: Study of the hydrodynamic processes Ofrivers and flood- plains with obstructions. Ph.D. thesis (2010). https://orca.cf.ac.uk/54161/1/U517543.pdf
11.Xia, J., Teo, F.Y., Lin, B., Falconer, R.A.: Formula of incipient velocity for flooded vehicles. Nat. Hazards 58(1), 1–14 (2011)CrossRef Google Scholar
12.Shu, C., Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Lin, B.: Incipient velocity for partially submerged vehicles in floodwaters. J. Hydraul. Res. 49(6), 709–717 (2011)CrossRef Google Scholar
13.Toda, K., Ishigaki, T., Ozaki, T.: Experiments study on floating car in flooding. In: International Conference on Flood Resilience: Experiences in Asia and Europe (2013)Google Scholar
14.Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Xiao, X., Wang, Y.: Criterion of vehicle stability in floodwaters based on theoretical and experimental studies. Nat. Hazards 70(2), 1619–1630 (2014)CrossRef Google Scholar
15.Martínez-Gomariz, E., Gómez, M., Russo, B., Djordjević, S.: A new experiments-based methodology to define the stability threshold for any vehicle exposed to flooding. Urban Water J. 14(9), 930–939 (2017)CrossRef Google Scholar
16.Smith, G.P., Modra, B.D., Tucker, T.A., Cox, R.J.: Vehicle stability testing for flood flows. Technical report 7, Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (2017)Google Scholar
17.Xia, J., Falconer, R.A., Lin, B., Tan, G.: Modelling flash flood risk in urban areas. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, vol. 164 (6), pp. 267–282. Thomas Telford Ltd, (2011)Google Scholar
18.Arrighi, C., Alcèrreca-Huerta, J.C., Oumeraci, H., Castelli, F.: Drag and lift contribution to the incipient motion of partly submerged flooded vehicles. J. Fluids Struct. 57, 170–184 (2015)CrossRef Google Scholar
19.Gómez, M., Martínez, E., Russo, B.: Experimental and numerical study of stability of vehicles exposed to flooding. In: Advances in Hydroinformatics, pp. 595–605. Springer, Singapore (2018). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7218-5_42
20.Al-Qadami, E.H.H., Abdurrasheed, A.S.I., Mustaffa, Z., Yusof, K.W., Malek, M.A., Ab Ghani, A.: Numerical modelling of flow characteristics over sharp crested triangular hump. Results Eng. 4, 100052 (2019)Google Scholar

Full Text View

Figure 1 - General diagram of the forehead and body of the concentrated

Laboratory and Numerical Study of Dynamics Salty Density Current in The Reservoirs

저수지의 동적 염분 흐름의 실험 및 수치해석적 연구

Authors

¹ Water resource expert Khuzestan Water and Power Authority
² shahid chamran univercity of ahwaz

Since the characteristics of density current is affected by different parameters, the effect of discharge rate changes, gradient and the concentration of density current on speed of the forehead and also the speed distribution in density current’s body have been investigated by physical and three-dimensional mathematical model (Flow-3d) in this research. For these purposes, different tests in the form of salty density current were done with three inflow discharge rates (0.7, 1 and 1.3 liters per second) and three different slopes (0, 1 and 2.2 percent). As well as to evaluate the effect of density changes on the flow characteristics, the concentration of 10, 15 and 20 grams per liter were used. In order to measure the speed of the forehead, velocity distribution in the body and its changes with flow, density and different slopes, video camera and ultrasound profiler speedometer were used in this study. Then, forehead speed and velocity distribution in the current’s body were achieved using six different turbulence models which are available on the software of “Flow-3D”. Comparing the results of physical and mathematical model showed that Eddy turbulence model and laminar flow mode have better accuracy in relation to other turbulent models. It should be noted that Reynolds number on experiments are at the range of 2000-4000.

밀도 흐름의 특성은 서로 다른 파라미터에 의해 영향을 받기 때문에 방출 속도 변화, 구배 및 밀도 흐름의 농도가 수두 속도에 미치는 영향과 밀도 흐름의 볼륨 속도 분포도 물리적 및 3차원 수학 모델(Flow-3d)에 의해 조사되었습니다.

이러한 목적을 위해 세 가지 유입 배출 속도(초당 0.7, 1 및 1.3L)와 세 가지 다른 경사도(0, 1, 2.2%)로 염분 밀도 흐름 형태의 다른 테스트가 수행되었습니다.

밀도 변화가 흐름 특성에 미치는 영향을 평가하기 위해 리터당 10, 15, 20g의 농도를 사용했습니다. 이 연구에서는 수두의 속도를 측정하기 위해 체내의 속도 분포와 흐름, 밀도 및 다양한 기울기와 함께 변화된 속도, 비디오 카메라 및 초음파 프로파일러 속도계를 사용했습니다.

그런 다음, “Flow-3D” 소프트웨어에서 사용할 수 있는 6가지 난류 모델을 사용하여 현재 볼륨의 수두 속도와 속도 분포를 달성했습니다.

물리적 모델과 수학적 모델의 결과를 비교한 결과, 에디 난류 모델과 층류 모드가 다른 난류 모델과 비교하여 더 나은 정확도를 가지고 있다는 것을 보여주었습니다.

레이놀즈 실험 번호는 2000-4000 범위라는 점에 유의해야 합니다.

Figure 2 – Dimensional profile of velocity distribution in concentrated flow (Graph and Altinacar, 1662)

Figure 1 - Schematic drawing of the physical model used — Figure 1 – Schematic drawing of the physical model used

Figure 0 - Sample of the concentrated flow created in the laboratory (front and body of concentrated flow) — Figure 0 – Sample of the concentrated flow created in the laboratory (front and body of concentrated flow)

Figure 6 - Mixing intensity values against Richardson number and comparing it with the results of other researchers — Figure 6 – Mixing intensity values against Richardson number and comparing it with the results of other researchers

Reference

1- حقی آبی، ا. 1383. بررسی اثر شیب کف بر پروفیل سرعت جریان غلیظ رساله دکتری رشته سازه های آبی ، دانشکده مهندسی علوم آب، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز.

2- کاهه، م. قمشی، م. و س، ح، موسوی جهرمی، 1391. بررسی آزمایشگاهی سرعت پیشروی جریان غلیظ بر روی سطوح زبر. علوم و مهندسی آبیاری، 35(1): 101-110.

3- کشتکار، ش. ایوب زاده، س ع. و ب، فیروزآبادی، 1389 . بررسی پروفیل سرعت و غلظت جریان گل آلود با استفاده از مدل فیزیکی. پژوهش‌های آبخیزداری،87(2): 43-36.

4- کوتی، ف. کاشفی پور، س، م. و م قمشی، 1391. تجزیه و تحلیل پروفیل های سرعت در جریان غلیظ. مجله ی علوم و فنون کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، علوم آب و خاک، 59: 29-15.

5- Altinakar, M.S., Graf, W.H. and , E.J, Hopfinger. 1990. Weakly depositing turbidity current on a small slope. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 28(1): 55-80.

6- Baas, J.H. McCaffrey, W.D. Haughton P.D.W. and C, Choux. 2005. Coupling between suspended sediment distribution and turbulence structure in a laboratory turbidity current. Journal of Geophysics Research, 110: 20-32.

7- Barahmand, N. and A, Shamsai. 2010. Experimental and theoretical study of density jumps on smooth and rough beds”. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management, 15(4): 285-307.

8- Britter, R.E. and P, Linden. 1980.The motion of the front of a gravity current traveling down an incline. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 99(3): 531- 543.

9- Buckee, C. Kneller, B. and J, Peakall. 2001. Turbulence structure in steady solute-driven gravity currents Blackwell Oxford pp, 173-188.

10- Choux, C.M.A. Baas, J.H. McCaffrey, W.D. and P.D.W, Haughton. 2005. Comparison of spatio–temporal evolution of experimental particulate gravity flows at two different initial concentrations based on velocity grain size and density data. Sedimentary Geology, 179: 49-69.

11- FathiMoghadam, M. TorabiPoudeh, H. Ghomshi, M. and M, Shafaei. 2008. The density current head velocity in expansion reaches. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 13(1): 63-68.

12- Ghomeshi, M. 1995. Reservoir sedimentationmodeling. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wollongong. Australia.

Graf, W.H. and M, S, Altinakar. 1998. Fluvial Hydraulics, Flow and Transport Processes in Channels of Simple Geometry. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, England.

14- Ieong, K, K. Mok, K,M. and H, Yeh. 2006. Fluctuation of the front propagation speed of developed gravity current. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 18(3): 351-355.

15- LaRocca, M. Adduce, C. Sciortino, G. And A, B, Pinzon. 2008. Experimental and numerical simulation of three-dimensional gravity currents on smooth and rough bottom. Physics of Fluids, 20, 106603.

16- McCaffrey, W, D. Choux, C, M. Baas, J, H. And P, D, W, Haughton. 2003. Spatio-temporal evolution of velocity structure concentration and grainsize stratification within experimental particulate gravity currents. Marine and Petroleum Geology. 20: 851-860.

17- Sequeiros, O, E. Spinewine, B. Beaubouef, R, T. Sun, T. Garcia, H. M., and G, Parker. 2010. Characteristics of Velocity and Excess Density Profiles of Saline Underflows and Turbidity Currents Flowing over a Mobile Bed”. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 136(7): 167-180.

18- Turner, J, S. 1973. Buoyancy Effects in Fluids. Cambridge University Press London, U.K, pp. 178-181.

19- Yu, W, S. Lee, H, Y. And M, S, Hsu. 2000. Experiments on deposition behavior of fine in a reservoir. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126(12): 912-920.

PDF View

The 3D computational domain model (50–18.6) slope change, and boundary condition for (50–30 slope change) model.

Numerical investigation of flow characteristics over stepped spillways

Güven, Aytaç
Mahmood, Ahmed Hussein
Water Supply (2021) 21 (3): 1344–1355.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.283 Article history

Abstract

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.

HIGHLIGHTS

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.

Keyword

CFD, numerical modelling, slope change, stepped spillway, turbulent flow

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODOLOGY

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.

(1)

(2)where is the velocity in x_i 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 FAVOR^TM 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 FAVOR^TM 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

(7)

(8)

(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.

Case study

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

Θ(°)	L(m)			x/l (–)
50.0	0.050	0.35	0.64	–	–	–
30.0	0.104	0.17	0.50	0.84	–	–
18.6	0.178	0.10	0.30	0.50	0.7	0.88

Location of pressure sensors on horizontal step faces

Inlet boundary condition for Q = 0.235 m3/s and fluid elevation 4.21834 m.

Inlet boundary condition for Q = 0.235 m³/s and fluid elevation 4.21834 m.

Numerical model set-up

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)	d_c/h (–)
1	50	18.6	0.06	0.045	0.1	2.6
2	50	18.6	0.06	0.082	0.235	4.6
3	50	30.0	0.06	0.045	0.1	2.6
4	50	30.0	0.06	0.082	0.235	4.6

Table 2 Variables used in test runs

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 LARGE DOWNLOAD 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

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 LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 LARGE DOWNLOAD SLIDE

Figure 6 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.

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 7 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.

Figure 7VIEW LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 8 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 8VIEW LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 9 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.

Figure 9VIEW LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 10 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 10VIEW LARGE DOWNLOAD 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 11 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.

Figure 11VIEW LARGE DOWNLOAD 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.

CONCLUSION

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