# Numerical Simulation Analysis on Hydraulic Optimization of the Integrated Pump Gate

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

_{d}, the maximum limit value of the pump station design specification; in the dual-pump mode, the recommended pump spacing is 2.00 D

_{s}.

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Computational Model and Numerical Simulation

#### 2.1. Project Overview

#### 2.2. Calculation Model and Control Parameter

#### 2.3. Control Equations

#### 2.4. Calculation Method and Turbulence Model

#### 2.5. Boundary Conditions

^{−4}. To ensure the continuity of the interface, the static and dynamic interfaces adopt the frozen stator model.

#### 2.6. Mesh Generation

#### 2.7. Scheme Design

_{d}, 0.8 D

_{d}, 1.7 D

_{d}, and 2.6 D

_{d}. In the dual-pump mode, with a water pump suspended height of 0.8 D

_{d}as the benchmark, the arrangement spacings are selected as 1.0 D

_{s}, 1.5 D

_{s}, 2.0 D

_{s}, and 2.33 D

_{s}. Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of the suspended height and arrangement spacing of the new integrated pump gate.

## 3. Result Analysis

#### 3.1. Selection of Characteristic Sections and Axes

#### 3.2. Analysis Parameters

#### 3.3. Analysis of Suspended Height Results

_{d}, the overall pressure distribution is more uniform, the pump installation height and into the pool at the bottom of the distance is closer, affecting the flow of water into the pump unit flow pattern in the bottom of the flared pipe in front of the bottom of a whirlpool. When the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, the into the pool overall pressure distribution is more uniform, but in the flared pipe inlet near the pressure change, it is not very different, slightly lower, and in the surface flow line through the gate panel flow to the flared pipe inlet, the overall flow line distribution is more regular. When the pump installation suspended height is 1.7 D

_{d}, the overall pressure and streamline distribution is not significantly different from scheme 9, and the streamline distribution is more symmetrical up and down; when the pump installation suspended height is 2.6 D

_{d}, the water streamline flows from the bottom to the top.

_{d}, it can be seen from the figure that the pressure distribution of the section at the mouth of the flared pipe is uniform, and the flow line forms a vortex point at the center of the flared pipe, the swirl degree is relatively poor, and the distribution of the flow line is poor; when the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, the pressure of the section changes, and the pressure near the mouth of the flared pipe decreases and then increases. In schemes 3 and 4, the pressure distribution is more consistent with scheme 2, and the flow line distribution in scheme 3 is more uniform, and there is no obvious back swirl at the center of the flow line.

_{d}, the area near the mouth of the flared pipe appeared a number of vortexes, and there is a slightly larger range of negative axial velocity distribution area at the location of the vortex. When the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, the flow line gathered in front is more obvious, and the flow line is gathered at the back of a smaller area of negative direction axial velocity distribution area. When the pump installation suspended height is 1.7 D

_{d}, the water flow line is obviously gathered at the gate panel, and there is a convergence point in the center of the inlet pool area, and the axial flow velocity increases slightly near the gate panel. When the suspended height of the pump installation is 2.6 D

_{d}, the water flow line is gathered near the gate, and the axial flow velocity increases at the gate panel.

_{d}, the flared pipe mouth into the water is in front of a larger axial velocity distribution area and the flared pipe mouth side wall is behind a little reverse axial velocity distribution in the direction of the water into the right side of the flared pipe mouth side wall at the obvious small whirlpool. When the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, the into the pool axial velocity distribution is larger and the flared pipe mouth into the water axial velocity distribution. When the suspended height of the pump is 1.7 D

_{d}, the axial velocity distribution of the inlet water is more consistent with scheme 8, the flow lines converge at one point at this section, and the axial velocity distribution in the negative direction is not obvious. When the suspended height of the pump is 2.6 D

_{d}, the flow lines at this section converge uniformly near the gate panel as a whole. The axial velocity distribution is lower, as it is closer to the gate panel, and there is no reverse axial velocity region distribution.

_{d}, the into the pool overall axial velocity distribution is small, the overall flow line is more uniformly gathered in the front side of the gate panel, and there is no larger vortex. When the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, into the pool before the flared pipe mouth axial velocity is larger, but the distance from the flared pipe mouth increases, the axial velocity gradually decreases, and the flow line is gathered in the gate panel at the side wall; there is no obvious streamline vortex, and the streamline collection on both sides of the inlet pool is not obvious. When the pump installation suspended height is 1.7 D

_{d}, the larger axial flow velocity distribution area increases, and the streamline collection is more obvious than program 8, and basically concentrated in the front side of the gate panel. When the pump installation suspended height is 2.6 D

_{d}, the larger axial flow velocity distribution has been extended to the streamline collection area.

_{d}, section 2-4 has the more obvious axial velocity distribution differences and a small range of reverse axial velocity distribution in the right side of the inlet direction. When the pump installation suspended height is 0.8 D

_{d}, section 2-4 in the reverse direction of the axial velocity distribution area disappears, but the relative position of the flared pipe mouth at the larger axial velocity on the bottom of the inlet pool is obvious. When the suspended height of the pump installation is 1.7 D

_{d}, the larger axial velocity distribution area at the relative position of the flared pipe mouth in section 2-4 is reduced, and the overall axial velocity distribution is more uniform. When the suspended height of the pump installation is 2.6 D

_{d}, a smaller range of axial velocity increase area starts to appear at the surface layer in section 2-3, and section 2-5 obviously shows that the larger axial velocity has a greater impact on the surface layer.

_{d}, the vortex distribution at the bottom of the gate becomes shorter and symmetrically distributed to the left and right, and the vortex disappears in the area below the flared mouth. When the suspended height of the pump is 2.6 D

_{d}, the overall vortex distribution is still concentrated in front of the flared mouth, and the vortex disappears at the bottom of the gate.

_{d}, the axial flow velocity distribution is uneven, and the axial flow velocity distribution on the line4 axis can be seen obviously. When the suspended installation height of the pump is 0.8 D

_{d}, there is no obvious change in the axial flow velocity on the line 1–3 axes, and the axial flow velocity distribution is better. The axial velocity distribution in the center of the line4 axis is obviously improved; with the continuous improvement of the pump installation position, the overall axial velocity distribution is not much different from the axial velocity distribution under scheme 2.

#### 3.4. Layout Distance Results Analysis

_{s}, the suction sump and the bottom of the gate panel appear to have a larger pressure area. When the pump distance is 1.50 D

_{s}, larger pressure distribution area of the suction sump and the bottom of the gate panel is obviously reduced. When the pump distance is 2.00 D

_{s}, the overall pressure distribution in the suction sump appears uneven, and the pressure of the suction sump inlet is reduced. With streamline convergence into the sump near the bottom of the front of the gate panel, the water flow convergence area appears to have a pressure increase area. When the pump spacing is 2.33 D

_{s}, the water flow convergence area appears to have a further expanded pressure increase.

_{s}, the bottom of the suction sump below the flared pipe mouth appears to have a significantly larger range in the pressure increase area. In program 6, the pressure distribution relative to the larger area pump range has been reduced, as shown in the pressure distribution area between the two pumps is larger. In program 7, the overall pressure distribution of the suction sump significantly decreased, and the overall flow line distribution is better; with the increase of the pump center distance, the pressure at the bottom of the suction sump between the two pumps showed an overall increase of diffusion distribution.

_{s}, the axial flow velocity distribution in front of the flared pipe mouth is larger overall, behind the flared pipe mouth appears a significantly larger area of reverse direction axial flow velocity distribution, and water flow lines converge into one place. In program 6, with the increase in the distance between the two pumps, the overall reverse direction axial flow velocity distribution behind the flared pipe mouth presents two pieces of left and right symmetric distribution, and water flow lines converge into two places. In program 7, the axial flow distribution is in the opposite direction behind the flared mouth; with the further increase of the distance between the pump centers, the area of the axial flow distribution in the opposite direction behind the flared mouth disappears obviously, and the curvature of the flow line between the two pumps increases obviously.

## 4. Conclusions

- (1)
- Under the different installation speakers dangling height, when the water pump installation speakers impending height is greater than 0.60 D
_{d}, into the pool overall internal pressure distribution is more uniform, but there are vortex pump trumpet nozzle distribution, velocity uniformity of section 2-3 is relatively low, the device efficiency is relatively low, the distribution of the amount of swirl before the trumpet nozzle can also increase, the vortex quantity under the horn nozzle is connected with the bottom of the pump after entering, and the axial flow velocity between the surface layer and the bottom of the nozzle is relatively low, and the overall axial flow velocity distribution is not uniform. When the pump installation suspension height is 0.8 D_{d}, the overall pressure distribution in the inlet pool decreases, the vortex disappears at the pump horn nozzle, the flow velocity uniformity at section 2-3 increases, and the device efficiency also increases. When the pump installation height is 1.7 D_{d}, the pressure and streamline in the inlet pool have no obvious distribution change, but the vorticity near the horn nozzle has no obvious effect on the bottom of the inlet pool. When the pump installation height is 0.8 D_{d}, it has an obvious influence on the flow velocity of the surface layer into the pool and has a great influence on the axial flow velocity and streamline distribution of the surface layer. - (2)
- Under different pump spacings, when the pump spacing is 1.00 D
_{s}, the uniformity of the flow velocity at section 2-3 and the efficiency of the device is low, and the vorticity distribution in front of the horn nozzle is denser, presenting a group distribution. The reverse axial flow velocity distribution area behind the horn nozzle is larger, and the pressure distribution in the whole area below the horn nozzle is larger. When the pump spacing is 1.50 D_{s}, the pump efficiency and flow velocity uniformity at section 2-3 increase, the vorticity distribution in front of the horn nozzle is no longer concentrated, and the reverse axial flow velocity distribution area behind the horn nozzle decreases and presents a small regional distribution. When the pump spacing is 2.00 D_{s}, the device efficiency and flow velocity uniformity at section 2-3 continue to improve, the overall vorticity distribution near the horn nozzle does not change significantly, and the pressure distribution in the inlet pool decreases significantly. When pump spacing of 2.33 D_{s}and pump assembly efficiency and uniformity section 2-3 flow to further improve, horn near the nozzle bigger pressure distribution area has increased, after the trumpet nozzle and trumpet nozzle side wall significantly reverse axial velocity, is in a good streamline distribution, plant efficiency change much, hydraulic loss relative increase. - (3)
- To sum up, the recommended pump installation height is 0.8 D
_{d}, the maximum value of pump station design specification; in dual-pump mode, the recommended pump spacing is 2.00 D_{s}.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

$\rho $ | Fluid density |

$u$ | Speed vector |

$\tau $ | Stress Tensor |

$F$ | Volume force vector of fluid |

$k$ | Turbulent kinetic energy |

$t$ | Time |

${u}_{i}$ | The velocity component of the fluid in the i-direction |

${x}_{i,}{x}_{j}$ | Three-dimensional coordinate components |

$\mu $ | Dynamic viscosity of the fluid |

${\mu}_{t}$ | Turbulent viscosity |

${\sigma}_{k}$ | The Prandtl number corresponding to the turbulent kinetic energy k$,{\sigma}_{k}=1.0$ |

${G}_{k}$ | The term for the generation of turbulent kinetic energy k caused by the mean velocity gradient |

${G}_{b}$ | The term for the generation of turbulent kinetic energy k caused by buoyancy |

$\epsilon $ | Dissipation rate |

${\sigma}_{\epsilon}$ | Prandtl number corresponding to dissipation rate ε, ${\sigma}_{\epsilon}=1.3$ |

${C}_{1\epsilon}{,C}_{2\epsilon}{,C}_{3\epsilon}$ | Empirical constants, ${C}_{1\epsilon}=1.44,{C}_{2\epsilon}=1.92,{C}_{3\epsilon}=1.0$ |

${S}_{k}{,S}_{\epsilon}$ | User-defined source items |

${D}_{d}$ | Inlet flare diameter under single pump condition |

${D}_{s}$ | Inlet flare diameter under double pumps condition |

$D$ | Impeller diameter |

${D}_{h}$ | Overhang height |

${D}_{l}$ | Layout spacing |

$H$ | Water level height in inlet sump |

${H}_{i}$ | Height of the horizontal feature section relative to the bottom of inlet sump |

$L$ | Inlet sump length |

${L}_{i}$ | Distance of longitudinal characteristic section relative to the gate |

${V}_{u}$ | Axial flow uniformity |

${u}_{ai}$ | Axial velocity of each node in the section |

${u}_{a}$ | Average axial velocity of the section |

$n$ | Nodes |

$h$ | Hydraulic loss |

$\u2206p$ | Difference of total pressure between sections |

$g$ | Gravitational acceleration |

${H}_{s}$ | Head |

${P}_{\mathit{inlet}}$ | Inlet total pressure |

${P}_{\mathit{outlet}}$ | Outlet total pressure |

$\eta $ | Efficiency |

$Q$ | Flow rate |

$T$ | Torque |

$\omega $ | angular velocity of impeller |

## Abbreviations

CFD | Computational fluid dynamics |

## References

- Luo, C.; Lei, S.H.; Chen, F.; Liu, H.; Cheng, L. Numerical simulation of rectifying characteristics of the airfoil deflectors in the sump of pumping station. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. Water
**2021**, 41, 53–59. [Google Scholar] - Feng, J.G.; Meng, X.Y.; Qian, S.T. Sill rectification characteristics downstream a unilaterally arranged pump-gateway. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. Water
**2019**, 39, 62–67. [Google Scholar] - Gao, C. Study on the Influence of Diversion Pier on the Hydraulic Characteristics of Xifeihe Combined-Sluice Pump Project. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.C. Study on the Hydraulic Characteristics of the Bidirectional Operation of the Sluice Station. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tastan, K. Effects of Inlet Geometry on the Occurrence of a Free-Surface Vortex. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2018**, 144, 04018009.1–04018009.11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, X.B.; Guo, Q.; Qiu, B.Y. Numerical Simulation of Air-entrained Vortex in Intake Based on Three-equation VLES Model. J. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach.
**2022**, 53, 183–188. [Google Scholar] - Tang, L. CFD Study on Influent Flow State Improvement of Qiqiaoweng Pumping Station in Nanjing. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zi, D.; Wang, F.J.; Yao, Z.F.; Hou, Y.K.; Xiao, R.F.; He, C.L.; Yang, E.B. Effects analysis on rectifying intake flow field for large scale pumping station with combined diversion piers. J. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. Trans. CSAE
**2015**, 31, 71–77. [Google Scholar] - Tatsuaki, N. Solving the Problem of Sedimentation at the Inlet of pumping Sation by using Submerged Diversion Piers. J. Water Rresources Water Eng.
**1993**, 42, 89–90. [Google Scholar] - Wang, M. Research on Hydraulic Performance of the Prefabricated Pumping Station by CFD. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Echavez, G.; McCann, E. An experimental study on the free surface vertical vortex. J. Exp. Fluids
**2002**, 1, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Choi, J.W.; Choi, Y.-D.; Kim, C.-G. Flow uniformity in a multi-intake pump sump model. J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
**2010**, 24, 1389–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Y.; Wu, P. Design and Application of Gate Pump. Urban Roads Bridges Flood Control
**2019**, 2, 186–187+22–23. [Google Scholar] - Guo, M.; Chen, Z.M.; Lee, Y.; Choi, Y.D. Air Entrainment Flow Characteristics of Horizontal and Elbow Type Gate Pump-Sump Model. J. KSFM J. Fluid Mach.
**2019**, 22, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, M.Y. Design and technical analysis of integrated pump gate. J. Mech. Electr. Inf.
**2020**, 29, 126–127. [Google Scholar] - Shen, Y.H.; Zhu, Z.Q. Research on Natural Vibration Characteristics of Pump-gate Combination Gate Structure Considering Fluid-structure Interaction. J. China Rural Water Hydropower
**2021**, 2, 13–17. [Google Scholar] - Shi, S.R.; Yan, G.H.; Dong, J.; Sun, Y.X. Safety and optimization of horizontal pump gates. J. Vib. Shock
**2021**, 40, 42–47. [Google Scholar] - Shi, S.R.; Yan, G.H.; Dong, J.; Yang, Y. Safety and Optimization of Vertical Pump Gate. J. Vib. Meas. Diagn.
**2021**, 41, 176–181+207. [Google Scholar] - GB/T 50265-2010; Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Pump Station Design Specification. China Planning Press: Beijing, China, 2011.

**Figure 2.**Schematic diagram of the plane layout of the integrated pump gate and the size and structure of the gate.

**Figure 13.**Suction sump of different sections of the axial flow velocity distribution (sections 2-1~2-5, unit: m/s).

**Figure 15.**Suction sump multi-axis on the axial flow velocity distribution with different overhang heights.

**Figure 21.**Suction sump of different sections of axial flow velocity distribution cloud (sections 2-1~2-5, unit: m/s).

**Figure 23.**Suction sump multi-axis on the axial flow velocity distribution with different arrangement spacing.

Computing Part | Number of Nodes | Grid Numbers |
---|---|---|

Forebay | 308,334 | 324,000 |

Inlet sump | 474,120 | 449,000 |

Forward water guide cone | 233,652 | 275,182 |

Impeller | 352,584 | 320,232 |

Guide vane | 492,646 | 437,710 |

Behind water guide cone | 103,660 | 121,990 |

Outlet sump | 247,937 | 257,047 |

Scheme | Suspension Height (D_{h}/D_{d}) | Arrangement Spacing (D_{l}/D_{s}) | Remark |
---|---|---|---|

1 | 0.6 | —— | single pump |

2 | 0.8 | —— | |

3 | 1.7 | —— | |

4 | 2.6 | —— | |

5 | 0.8 | 1.00 | double pumps |

6 | 0.8 | 1.50 | |

7 | 0.8 | 2.00 | |

8 | 0.8 | 2.33 |

Plan | Design Water Level (m) | Head (m) | Efficiency (%) |
---|---|---|---|

1 | 3.8 | 3.920 | 53.39 |

2 | 3.8 | 3.930 | 56.19 |

3 | 3.8 | 3.962 | 58.26 |

4 | 3.8 | 3.922 | 62.46 |

Plan | Discharge Q (m^{3}/s) | Inlet Side Water Level (m) | Section 2-3 Axial Flow Rate Uniformity (%) |
---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 56.72 |

2 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 64.25 |

3 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 70.51 |

4 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 60.66 |

Plan | Distance of Pump (D_{l}/D_{s}) | Head (m) | Efficiency (%) | Loss of Hydraulic (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|

5 | 1.00 | 4.709 | 66.32 | 0.471 |

6 | 1.50 | 4.712 | 67.90 | 0.471 |

7 | 2.00 | 4.711 | 68.71 | 0.471 |

8 | 2.33 | 4.754 | 68.80 | 0.475 |

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

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Li, S.; Shen, C.; Sun, T.; Cheng, L.; Lei, S.; Xia, C.; Zhang, C.
Numerical Simulation Analysis on Hydraulic Optimization of the Integrated Pump Gate. *Energies* **2022**, *15*, 4664.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134664

**AMA Style**

Li S, Shen C, Sun T, Cheng L, Lei S, Xia C, Zhang C.
Numerical Simulation Analysis on Hydraulic Optimization of the Integrated Pump Gate. *Energies*. 2022; 15(13):4664.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134664

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Li, Songbai, Changrong Shen, Tao Sun, Li Cheng, Shuaihao Lei, Chenzhi Xia, and Chenghua Zhang.
2022. "Numerical Simulation Analysis on Hydraulic Optimization of the Integrated Pump Gate" *Energies* 15, no. 13: 4664.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134664