Due to the large specific drop of river and high sediment content in flood season, the design of sluice in mountainous area usually adopts apron energy dissipator to connect with the downstream river. Based on the physical model test of a hydropower station, this paper makes a comparative study of the two connecting forms of the anti-arc apron and the straight slope apron. By comparing the flow pattern, flow field distribution and downstream riverbed scour, the results show that the anti-arc apron is obviously superior to the straight slope apron in terms of flow pattern and downstream riverbed scour. Specifically to eliminate the left-side reflow of the apron. The maximum scouring depth is reduced by 38%. However, at the downstream low water level, the shore flow velocity of the two banks is larger than that of the straight slope apron, with the average increase of 12.5% on the right bank. Considering comprehensively, if the mountains on both sides are relatively complete, better engineering results can be obtained by adopting anti-arc apron.
Key words
anti-arc apron /
slope apron /
flow regime /
flow velocity /
river channel scour
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1]李晓庆,唐新军.新疆引水枢纽闸后消能防冲设计理念的演变[J].水电能源科学,2012,30(11):77-80,69.
[2]中华人民共和国水利部.水闸设计规范: SL265-2016[S].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2016.
[3]柯剑.阴坪水电站闸下消能工模型试验与数值模拟研究[D].成都:四川大学,2005.
[4]徐自立,南晓红,梁宗祥.非岩基水闸泄洪消能和冲沙试验研究[J].人民黄河,2010,32(1):66-68.
[5]王伟,田忠.山区河流中小型闸坝工程消能方式比较[J].水电能源科学,2014,32(6):94-96.
[6]蒋兵,周慧.YLH拦河引水枢纽消能防冲的设计与研究[J].南水北调与水利科技,2009,7(2):13-15.
[7]陈俊英,张新燕,张宽地,等.T形墩应用于低佛氏数水流消能的试验研究[J].中国农村水利水电,2005(10):54-57.
[8]贾栖,马旭东,夏雪平,等.山区深覆盖层河道闸坝泄洪消能体型优化研究[J].西北水电,2018(2):41-45.
[9]张彦辉,于海龙,刘春玉.多泥沙河流覆盖层基础上的水闸消能工研究[J].中国水能及电气化,2016(7):54-61.
[10]杨玲,孙娟,戚印鑫.闸后两种消能型式的试验对比研究[J].水资源与水工程学报,2018,29(6):157-162.