
Research on Configuration Optimizing of Flip Bucket and Downstream Energy Dissipation and Scour Prevention for Spillway of Shahe Reservoir
Zhi-ya HE, Yue-hua LENG, Lei YANG, Xiu-yan LI, Wen-chao LIU
Research on Configuration Optimizing of Flip Bucket and Downstream Energy Dissipation and Scour Prevention for Spillway of Shahe Reservoir
In order to solve the problems of narrow valley, large bending angle, collapse, complicated river topography and geological conditions in the downstream of the flood discharge energy dissipation area of the newly built spillway of Shahe Reservoir in Wulong County, Chongqing,this paper takes the two characteristic parameters of radius r and jet angle θ 1, makes three shape schemes, and uses FLUENT software to conduct numerical simulation. The hydraulic characteristic parameters(flow velocity, pressure and deflecting flow pattern, etc.)are analyzed under the different type of flip bucket energy dissipation.The results show that the scheme with the angle 19.42° and the radius 33.84 m successfully narrates the water tongue drop point, keeps away from the downstream collapse body and reduces downstream scouring.On this basis, different schemes for protection of downstream collapse are compared and the final protection measures are recommended.
spillway / flip bucket / numerical simulation / hydraulic characteristics / hydraulic model test {{custom_keyword}} /
表1 试验工况表 |
工况 | 频率P/% | 流量Q 泄/(m3·s-1) | 库水位/m | 下游控制水位/m |
---|---|---|---|---|
消能防冲设计洪水工况 | 3.3 | 625.64 | 412.00 | 343.27 |
校核洪水工况 | 0.1 | 840.05 | 414.34 | 344.00 |
表2 初设方案下游左侧护岸坡脚冲刷试验成果表 (m) |
断面 | Y0+236.67 m | Y0+253.70 m | 王家沟口 | Y0+280.67 m | Y0+294.22 m | Y0+326.50 m | Y0+375.00 m |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P=3.3% | -2.16 | -4.48 | -4.20 | -6.20 | -1.98 | +5.40 | +14.64 |
P=0.1% | -3.16 | -4.68 | -6.80 | -10.48 | -6.50 | +3.36 | +16.40 |
表3 挑流鼻坎体型优化方案 |
方案名 | 挑坎出口高程/m | 反弧半径/m | 挑角/(°) |
---|---|---|---|
优化方案一 | 345.49 | 39.00 | 14.08 |
优化方案二 | 346.65 | 33.84 | 19.42 |
优化方案三 | 349.00 | 27.00 | 30.70 |
表4 典型断面数模与物模试验水深及临底流速对比表 |
桩号/m | Y0-080.10 | Y0-054.91 | Y0-020.00 | Y0+000.00 | Y0+010.82 | Y0+023.00 | Y0+033.00 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | 水深/m | 流速/(m·s-1) | |
计算值 | 14.00 | 1.63 | 13.52 | 2.46 | 13.24 | 2.89 | 12.46 | 4.55 | 7.00 | 12.03 | 5.86 | 16.37 | 3.85 | 18.33 |
试验值 | 14.00 | 1.63 | 13.85 | 2.38 | 13.80 | 2.73 | 12.80 | 4.49 | 6.68 | 11.86 | 5.52 | 16.18 | 3.68 | 18.24 |
误差/% | 0 | 0 | 2.38 | 3.36 | 4.06 | 5.86 | 2.66 | 1.34 | 0.30 | 1.43 | 6.16 | 1.17 | 4.62 | 0.49 |
桩号/m | Y0+058.00 | Y0+088.00 | Y0+118.00 | Y0+133.00 | Y0+143.95 | Y0+156.82 | ||||||||
计算值 | 2.86 | 22.32 | 2.71 | 27.03 | 2.29 | 28.92 | 2.14 | 29.95 | 2.36 | 28.76 | 2.57 | 30.50 | ||
试验值 | 3.00 | 22.89 | 2.72 | 26.56 | 2.16 | 28.46 | 2.08 | 29.54 | 2.20 | 28.33 | 2.63 | 29.73 | ||
误差/% | 4.67 | 2.49 | 0.37 | 1.77 | 6.02 | 1.61 | 2.88 | 1.39 | 7.28 | 1.52 | 2.28 | 2.59 |
表5 挑流鼻坎各体型优化方案典型断面流速及压强 |
水力参数 | 桩号/m | 优化方案一 | 优化方案二 | 优化方案三 |
---|---|---|---|---|
流速/(m·s-1) | Y0+118.00 | 29.44 | 29.46 | 29.35 |
Y0+133.00 | 30.38 | 30.15 | 30.51 | |
Y0+143.95 | 30.58 | 30.72 | 31.05 | |
Y0+156.82 | 30.46 | 30.26 | 29.44 | |
压强/kPa | Y0+118.00 | 27.01 | 27.23 | 27.86 |
Y0+133.00 | 75.17 | 77.79 | 84.26 | |
Y0+138.48 | 82.2 | 81.5 | 104.37 | |
Y0+143.95 | 75.78 | 76.02 | 99.37 | |
Y0+148.57 | 81.57 | 82.44 | 97.51 | |
Y0+153.19 | 77.82 | 74.1 | 91.17 |
表6 各优化工况挑流水舌参数表 (m) |
参数 | 水舌上顶点 | 水舌下弯点 | 水舌近入水点 水平距离 | 水舌远入水点 水平距离 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水平距离 | 高程 | 水平距离 | 高程 | |||
初设方案 | 42.00 | 361.12 | 30.00 | 354.40 | 74.00 | 90.00 |
优化方案一 | 24.12 | 351.52 | 24.00 | 347.00 | 49.18 | 68.80 |
优化方案二 | 30.26 | 356.08 | 29.18 | 350.00 | 66.18 | 81.28 |
优化方案三 | 46.18 | 364.50 | 45.70 | 358.00 | 95.37 | 106.18 |
表7 挑流鼻坎推荐体型方案挑流水舌主要参数表 |
特征水位 | H=412.00 m(P=3.3%) | H=414.34 m(P=0.1%) |
---|---|---|
挑坎顶端水深/m | 2.65 | 3.75 |
挑坎处出流流速/(m·s-1) | 30.36 | 33.90 |
水舌上顶点 | 水平距离29 m,高程356.08 m | 水平距离30 m,高程356.28 m |
水舌下弯点 | 水平距离28 m,高程350.00 m | 水平距离28 m,高程349.44 m |
水舌远入水点 | 水平距离80 m | 水平距离88 m |
水舌近入水点 | 水平距离63 m | 水平距离66 m |
表8 挑流鼻坎推荐体型方案下游河床典型断面冲刷试验成果表 |
河床冲坑 最大深度 | 河床冲坑最低点距挑坎出口 | Y0+253.70 m 断面坡脚冲深 | 王家沟沟口 坡脚冲深 | Y0+280.67 m 断面坡脚冲深 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P=3.3% | 14.32 m(右岸) | 122.0 m | 4.08 m | 4.76 m | 1.88 m |
P=0.1% | 15.28 m(右岸) | 110.0 m | 5.88 m | 6.28 m | 5.68 m |
表9 推荐石笼压脚方案与未采取石笼压脚下游左侧护岸坡脚冲刷对比(P=0.1%) (m) |
断面 | Y0+236.67 m | Y0+253.70 m | 王家沟沟口 | Y0+280.67 m | Y0+294.22 m | Y0+326.50 m |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
未采取石笼压脚 | -4.56 | -5.88 | -6.28 | -5.68 | -2.70 | +2.28 |
推荐石笼压脚方案 | -2.96(无石笼) | -0.96(无石笼) | 0(石笼有剩余) | +0.40(无石笼) | +1.70(无石笼) | +6.68(石笼被掩埋) |
1 |
郭子中.消能防冲原理与水力计算[M].北京:科学出版社,1982.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
2 |
张守磊,陈和春,张坤.斜切挑流鼻坎水舌挑距水力计算研究[J].中国水运月刊,2008,8(12):160-161.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
3 |
李书芳,吴建华,马飞.基于出射流速的反弧鼻坎挑距计算[J].水利水电科技进展,2020,40(2):58-62.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
4 |
吴鹏.高水头泄水建筑物差动式挑流消能研究[D].乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2009.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
5 |
余挺,贺昌林,张建民,等.高水头大流量泄洪洞挑坎体型优化及下游冲淤研究[J].四川大学学报(工程科学版),2007(4):20-25.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
6 |
成永华,曾一夫,黄志文,等.太湖水库溢洪道挑流鼻坎优化设计研究[J].江西水利科技,2020(2):106-112.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
7 |
中华人民共和国行业标准. 水工(常规)模型试验规程:SL 155-2012. 北京:中国水利水电出版社, 2012.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
8 |
中华人民共和国水利部. 溢洪道设计规范:SL253- 2018 [S].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2018.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
9 |
李玲,陈永灿,李永红.三维VOF模型及其在溢洪道水流计算中的应用[J].水力发电学报,2007(2):83-87.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
{{custom_ref.label}} |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |