Next Article in Journal
Fluid-Structure Interaction in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Effect of Haematocrit
Next Article in Special Issue
Field Studies and 3D Modelling of Morphodynamics in a Meandering River Reach Dominated by Tides and Suspended Load
Previous Article in Journal
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Fluids in 2018
Open AccessReview

The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective

1
Vattenfall AB, Research & Development (R & D), Hydraulic Laboratory, 81426 Älvkarleby, Sweden
2
Division of Resources, Energy & Infrastructure, Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden
3
Division of Fluid & Experimental Mechanics, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fluids 2019, 4(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids4010010
Received: 9 December 2018 / Revised: 7 January 2019 / Accepted: 9 January 2019 / Published: 13 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Free surface flows)
Most of the hydropower dams in Sweden were built before 1980. The present dam-safety guidelines have resulted in higher design floods than their spillway discharge capacity and the need for structural upgrades. This has led to renewed laboratory model tests. For some dams, even computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are performed. This provides the possibility to compare the spillway discharge data between the model tests performed a few decades apart. The paper presents the hydropower development, the needs for the ongoing dam rehabilitations and the history of physical hydraulic modeling in Sweden. More than 20 spillways, both surface and bottom types, are analyzed to evaluate their discharge modeling accuracy. The past and present model tests are compared with each other and with the CFD results if available. Discrepancies do exist in the discharges between the model tests made a few decades apart. The differences fall within the range −8.3%–+11.2%. The reasons for the discrepancies are sought from several aspects. The primary source of the errors is seemingly the model construction quality and flow measurement method. The machine milling technique and 3D printing reduce the source of construction errors and improve the model quality. Results of the CFD simulations differ, at the maximum, by 3.8% from the physical tests. They are conducted without knowledge of the physical model results in advance. Following the best practice guidelines, CFD should generate results of decent accuracy for discharge prediction. View Full-Text
Keywords: spillway; bottom outlet; design flood; discharge capacity; model tests; computational fluid dynamics (CFD) spillway; bottom outlet; design flood; discharge capacity; model tests; computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, J.; Andreasson, P.; Teng, P.; Xie, Q. The Past and Present of Discharge Capacity Modeling for Spillways—A Swedish Perspective. Fluids 2019, 4, 10.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
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