Numerical and experimental investigation on vortex control and sedimentation suppression in a Y-shaped diversion channel with circular inlet tanks

Figures & data

Figure 1. Field conditions of the circular forebay: (a) illustrating the flow pattern in the Y-shaped diversion channel; (b) showing the location and direction of the vortex flow pattern in a circular inlet tank; (c) demonstrating sediment deposition in the Y-shaped diversion channel. These Figures were captured during the authors’ field research in 2022.

Figure 2. Geometric dimensions of the circular forebay.

Figure 3. Computational Grids.

Figure 4. Hydraulic losses in circular forebays with different numbers of grids.

Table 1. Water and Sediment Statistics (2013–2020).

	Month
Project	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Annual
Water volume (B m^3)	1.620	1.651	1.726	1.899	1.912	2.098	2.152	2.998	3.102	2.935	1.536	1.498	25.127
Sediment (M kg)	48.15	37.42	158.63	392.41	1149.56	1432.12	4563.32	11204.13	5736.45	8213.65	283.61	145.56	33365.01
Sediment Concentration (kg/m^3)	0.029	0.023	0.092	0.207	0.601	0.683	2.121	3.737	1.849	2.799	0.185	0.097	1.328

Figure 5. Three-dimensional distribution of the flow field in the circular forebay: (a) top view; (b) bottom view.

Figure 6. Distribution of streamlines and sediment content in various cross-sections: (a) y2 cross-section; (b) y1 cross-section.

Figure 7. Bottom sill layout.

Table 2. Configuration of Simulation Schemes 1–3.

Scheme	$l\left(m\right)$	$b$	$K\left(m\right)$	$G\left(m\right)$	$C\left(m\right)$
1	6.46	$b=0.25L$	0.3	0.5	0.5
2	7.06	$b=0.25L$	0.3	0.5	0.5
3	7.66	$b=0.25L$	0.3	0.5	0.5

Table 3. Configuration of Simulation Schemes 4–9.

Scheme	$a\left(m\right)$	$b$	$K\left(m\right)$	$G\left(m\right)$	$C\left(m\right)$
4	6.8	$b=0.25Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5
5	7.8	$b=0.25Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5
6	8.8	$b=0.25Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5
7	9.8	$b=0.25Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5
8	10.8	$b=0.25Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5
9	11.8	$b=0.5Z$	0.3	0.5	0.5

Table 4. Configuration of Simulation Scheme 10.

Scheme	$a1\left(m\right)$	$b$	$a2\left(m\right)$	$b\left(m\right)$	Remarks
10	6.8	$b=0.25Z$	11.8	$b=0.25Z$	Combination of Scheme 4 and Scheme 9

Figure 9. Water pressure plate layout.

Table 5. Configuration of Simulation Schemes 11–20.

Scheme	$a\left(m\right)$	$\gamma {(}^{\circ })$	Length $\left(m\right)$	Width $\left(m\right)$	Height $\left(m\right)$
11	6.8	30	1.2	0.1	1
12	6.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
13	6.8	60	1.2	0.1	1
14	7.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
15	8.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
16	9.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
17	10.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
18	11.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
19	12.8	45	1.2	0.1	1
20	13.8	45	1.2	0.1	1

Table 6. Calculation of the flow velocity uniformity and deflection angle for cross-section y1.

Scheme	Monitoring surface	$v_a\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)$	$\theta (\circ )$
Original	$y1$	86.15	18.94
3	$y1$	93.21	13.52
19	$y1$	96.35	4.65

Table 7. Estimated Vortex Reduction Values for Different Rectification Measures.

Scheme	$s_{\mathrm{wi}}\left(m^2\right)$	Circular area$\left(m^2\right)$	$w_i$ (%)	$\mathrm{\Delta }{w}_i$(%)
Original	17.967	26.421	68.01	–
3	13.535	26.421	51.23	24.68
19	9.469	26.421	35.83	47.30

Figure 11. Physical model device for circular forebay.

Figure 12. Comparison between the numerical simulation and measured sediment content of section y1: (a) Original Scheme; (b) Scheme 3; (c) Scheme 19.

Figure 13. Comparative analysis of numerical simulation and measured results: (a) Numerical simulation; (b) Filed measurement results.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.