Next Article in Journal
Microbial Community Structure and Its Driving Environmental Factors in Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) Aquaculture Pond
Next Article in Special Issue
Bottom-Pressure Development Due to an Abrupt Slope Reduction at Stepped Spillways
Previous Article in Journal
Preliminary Evaluation of the Possible Occurrence of Pesticides in Groundwater Contaminated with Nitrates—A Case Study from Southern Poland
Previous Article in Special Issue
Apron and Cutoff Wall Scour Protection for Piano Key Weirs
 
 
Article

Do the Volume-of-Fluid and the Two-Phase Euler Compete for Modeling a Spillway Aerator?

1
IHCantabria—Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental, Calle Isabel Torres 15, 39011 Santander, Spain
2
Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Avenida do Brasil 101, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Jorge Matos, Sebastien Erpicum and Anton J. Schleiss
Water 2021, 13(21), 3092; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213092
Received: 21 August 2021 / Revised: 30 October 2021 / Accepted: 31 October 2021 / Published: 3 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Spillway Hydraulics: From Theory to Practice)
Spillway design is key to the effective and safe operation of dams. Typically, the flow is characterized by high velocity, high levels of turbulence, and aeration. In the last two decades, advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) made available several numerical tools to aid hydraulic structures engineers. The most frequent approach is to solve the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations using an Euler type model combined with the volume-of-fluid (VoF) method. Regardless of a few applications, the complete two-phase Euler is still considered to demand exorbitant computational resources. An assessment is performed in a spillway offset aerator, comparing the two-phase volume-of-fluid (TPVoF) with the complete two-phase Euler (CTPE). Both models are included in the OpenFOAM® toolbox. As expected, the TPVoF results depend highly on the mesh, not showing convergence in the maximum chute bottom pressure and the lower-nappe aeration, tending to null aeration as resolution increases. The CTPE combined with the kω SST Sato turbulence model exhibits the most accurate results and mesh convergence in the lower-nappe aeration. Surprisingly, intermediate mesh resolutions are sufficient to surpass the TPVoF performance with reasonable calculation efforts. Moreover, compressibility, flow bulking, and several entrained air effects in the flow are comprehended. Despite not reproducing all aspects of the flow with acceptable accuracy, the complete two-phase Euler demonstrated an efficient cost-benefit performance and high value in spillway aerated flows. Nonetheless, further developments are expected to enhance the efficiency and stability of this model. View Full-Text
Keywords: spillway aerator; aeration; CFD; two-phase Euler; volume-of-fluid; hydraulic structures spillway aerator; aeration; CFD; two-phase Euler; volume-of-fluid; hydraulic structures
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mendes, L.S.; Lara, J.L.; Viseu, M.T. Do the Volume-of-Fluid and the Two-Phase Euler Compete for Modeling a Spillway Aerator? Water 2021, 13, 3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213092

AMA Style

Mendes LS, Lara JL, Viseu MT. Do the Volume-of-Fluid and the Two-Phase Euler Compete for Modeling a Spillway Aerator? Water. 2021; 13(21):3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213092

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mendes, Lourenço Sassetti, Javier L. Lara, and Maria Teresa Viseu. 2021. "Do the Volume-of-Fluid and the Two-Phase Euler Compete for Modeling a Spillway Aerator?" Water 13, no. 21: 3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213092

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop