KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-8 Water Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0742-0 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Physical and Numerical Model of Flow through the Spillways with a Breast Wall
Nguyen Cong Thanh* and Wang Ling-Ling**
Received December 17, 2013/Revised April 8, 2014/Accepted November 14, 2014/Published Online April 10, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Spillways with breast walls are often used in such situations as increasing the regulating storage of flood discharge or disposing
sediment from the reservoirs, etc. The hydraulic characteristics of the spillways with breast walls can be obtained by experimental,
analytical and numerical methods. The aim of this study is to predict some characteristics of flow through the spillway with a breast
wall with low and average-head operation using the numerical modeling along with some turbulence closure models. The
experimental data were used to validate the numerical predictions. The results show that the RNG k-ε and the standard k-ε turbulence
models can predict quite precisely some characteristics, such as the water surface, the discharge, and the vertical pressure distribution
in comparison with the measured data. However, some errors occur on this pressure in the region nearby the crest boundary.
Furthermore, the RNG k-ε turbulence model performed more accurately than the standard k-ε model as compared to the experimental
data. Therefore, the RNG k-ε turbulence model uses to properly validate the characteristics of the flow through spillway with a breast
wall under various conditions, without recourse to expensive experimental procedures.
Keywords: grid convergence index, turbulence models, spillway, breast wall, volume of fluid, pressure distribution
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction To date, CFD modeling has been widely used as a valuable

The spillways including breast walls are often used in situations
where large amounts of sediment enter the reservoir. In addition,
it could be applied to increase the regulating storage of flood
discharge of the reservoir (Novak, 2010). The flow through
under the breast wall spillways is a type of the orifice spillways
and can be classified into the free or submerge controlled flows
(Ansar and Chen, 2009). In the past, studying the flow through
the spillways with breast walls, generally, often applies either
theoretical or physical models. The disadvantages of the physical
model are costly and time consuming; and the accuracy depends
on the scale effect and the quality of the measurement instruments.
With the development of computer power and successes in the
research of fluid dynamics, the model of Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) has been studied and developed during recent
decades (Ferziger and Peri, 2002). The main advantages of
numerical modeling are time-efficiency and lower cost in com-
parison with physical model research. It provides details on the
entire flow field and allows the early identification of proble-
matic flow features and modifications to the layout which is
trialed rapidly and cost-effectively. However, there are still many
factors affecting the precision of the results gained from the
numerical modeling, e.g., discretization and iterative methods,
basic domain meshing and/or computation parameters setup, etc.
tool in the optimization phase of the hydraulic projects prior to
the commission of a physical model study. The application of
CFD has been developed extensively in the hydraulic and river
engineering. Sankaranarayanan and Rao (1996) used 2-D finite
element method and ideal fluid theory to analyze a numerical
simulation of the radial gated spillway problem with Water
Experiment Station (WES) profile. It showed a good agreement
between the numerical and physical model. Chanel and Doering
(2008) simulated the flow through vertical gated spillway with
Ogee-profile and some gate openings for the Wuskwatim spillway
in Canada. The result showed that the CFD model was quite
closely reproduced the 6 m opening discharge; slightly over-
estimated discharge (by less than 2%) for the 4 m opening, and
significantly overestimated discharge for the 2 m opening. Bhajantri
et al. (2007) used the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) turbulence
model with the finite volume method to simulate the partial gate
operation of a sluice spillway with high head to investigate some
hydraulic characteristics. The downstream profile is a relatively
flat slope in this study. Bhosekar et al. (2011) performed a
physical model to validate the 3-D numerical model of an orifice
spillway with high-head operation (60~90 m) and aerator device
behind the sill. The downstream profile of this orifice spillway is
a parabolic relationship in their work.
Although the numerical modeling studies for the orifice spillways

*Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engi-
neering, HoHai University, Nanjing 210098, China (E-mail: thanh43d@gmail.com)
**Professor, State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering,
HoHai University, Nanjing 210098, China (Corresponding Author, E-mail: wanglingling@hhu.edu.cn)

−1−
 Nguyen Cong Thanh and Wang Ling-Ling
with high-head along with an Ogee downstream profile were
performed extensively, the concerning about the spillway with a
breast wall with low and average-head operation is still confined.
The type of this spillway is often applied in gated spillway to
increase the regulating storage of flood discharge, reducing the
gate height and number of spillway spans, reducing in cost of
gates and operating mechanism, etc. Therefore, the purpose of
this work is to use the available commercial CFD package, FLOW-
3D, to simulate the flow through the spillway with a breast wall.
The downstream profile is fabricated with the parabolic profile
that is designed with the low-and the average water heads. The
flow is free controlled and the gate is full opening in this study.
The grid-independent study would be considered and evaluated
the sensitivity of the model solutions to the numerical discretization.
Furthermore, a comparative study of two turbulence models,
namely, the RNG k-ε and the standard k-ε models, were performed
to analyze the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in this field.
Moreover, the effect of the Boundary Condition (B.C) on the
numerical result would be investigated. The experimental data,
which was conducted in a laboratory flume by the authors, was
used to validate the numerical simulations.
2. Numerical Methodology
2.1 Governing Equation
The available commercially CFD package software, FLOW-
3D, is a CFD product developed and supported by Flow Science,
Inc. This software has been widely used in the hydrodynamics
engineering, especially, in the field of spillway flow analysis. It
can simulate the 2-D or 3-D scheme that has complicated geo-
metry with time-dependent (transient) problems. The program
based on the fundamental laws of mass, momentum, and energy
conservation. Thus, it applies to almost types of flow process.
For this reason, the FLOW-3D is often referred as a general
purpose CFD solver. The FLOW-3D uses the finite volume/
finite difference method to solve the Reynolds-Averaged Navier
Stock Equations (RANS) by the implementation of the FAVOR
method to define an obstacle (Flow Science, 2010). The general
governing RANS and continuity equations for incompressible
flow, including the FAVOR variables, are given by:
∂
------ ( ui Ai ) = 0
∂xi
∂u ∂ui ⎞
1- ⎛ u A ------- ∂p + G + F
-------i + ----- - = − --1- ------
∂t VF ⎝ ∂xj ⎠
j j i i
ρ ∂xi
In which ui are the velocity in the xi directions that are x, y, z-
directions in the Cartesian coordinates; t is the time; Ai is the
fractional area open to flow in the xi-direction; VF is the volume
fraction of fluid in each cell; ρ is the density; p is pressure; Gi is
gravitational force in the subscript directions; Fi represents the
Reynolds stresses for which a turbulence model is required for
closure the RANS equations.
Free surface exists in the circumstances of the hydraulic
engineering. To capture it, the Volume of Fluid (VOF) technique
was used to find the shape of the free surface, which was
reported by Hirt and Nichols (1981) and integrated in FLOW-
3D. The shape of the free surface is determined by computing
the fraction of each near-interface cell of a xed grid.
2.2 Numerical Model Implementation
The computational domain for numerical modeling is shown
in Fig. 1. The dimension of the computational domain was
defined for containing 6 m long and 0.7 m high. The location of
the origin of the coordinate system is at the left-hand bottom
corner of the computational domain. The obstacle representing
the spillway with a parabolic profile and a breast wall was set 3
m from the inflow boundary. As a result, the inflow from
upstream boundary was far enough from the spillway that did not
affect on the flow through the breast wall. To guarantee the
numerical results is compared precisely with the physical model
conducted by the authors, the width of the numerical modeling
was taken equal to Bm = 0.4 m (Y − direction). Additionally, to
consider the effect of the wall on the final result, the numerical
model would be performed with the width of model Bm = 1 m.
These results would be compared to the experimental data to
estimate the influence of the model’s width on the final numerical
simulations.
FLOW-3D uses a simple grid of rectangular elements. Thus, it
has the advantages of ease of generation, regularly for improved
numerical accuracy, and requiring minimal memory storage. To
simplify the grid construction and the number of numerical
variables, a uniform cell size was used throughout this study. To
estimate the effect of grid quality on the result, the model was
performed in three uniform mesh sizes ∆h = 0.007, 0.01, and
0.015 m, respectively. According to Savage and Johnson (2001)
and Kim and Park (2005), these grids spacing were appropriate
and gave a reasonable result for the size of the computing domain
in this study. In addition, the Grid-Convergence Index (GCI) of
the simulation would be calculated to evaluate the grid-conver-
gence study basing on the numerical results. Only the E5 and E6
cases (Table 1) were simulated to find the reasonable grid
spacing as well as the GCI condition due to the insignificant
difference between the computational domains. After having
concluded about the grid-convergence study, the RNG k-ε and
(1)
(2)
Fig. 1. Scheme of Computational Domain and Boundary Condi-
tions for the Modeling
−2− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Physical and Numerical Model of Flow through the Spillways with a Breast Wall

Table 1. Selected Experiment Parameters profile was conducted by following equation x2/D2 + z2/(0.33D)2
Hd D H Vo Fr = 1. The model of the spillway was constructed and installed in a
Test cases He /D
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm/s) (upstream) steel frame flume with transparent Plexiglas sides, 40 cm wide,
E1 10 8.5 12.5 20.74 1.50 0.102 600 cm long, and 80 cm deep. The bottom of the flume was
E2 10 8.5 14.9 23.39 1.79 0.111 made of stainless steel with a horizontal slope. All spillways with
E3 15 9.5 14.6 22.9 1.56 0.109 a breast wall models were installed using Plexiglas because it can
E4 15 9.5 17.2 25.4 1.85 0.118 fabricate with smooth curves and easily instrumented with pressure
E5 20 10.3 16.2 23.44 1.60 0.105
taps.
E6 20 10.3 17.5 24.91 1.73 0.11
The water level from the upstream to the downstream was
measured at the centerline of the flume with a point gauge with
an accuracy of ± 0.1 mm. The crest pressure and pressure
the standard k-ε turbulence models were applied in both the E5 distribution at the cross-section were measured by static tube that
and E6 cases. What turbulence model had the smaller differences was a piezometer board with glass tubes vented to the atmosphere.
as compared to the physical model, that model would apply to This cross section was located at section C-C as shown in Fig. 1.
simulate the flow of the remaining cases. Moreover, the fluid The piezometer board readings provided the average pressure
properties of 20oC water were used. readings at each pressure tap location. Measurements on the
piezometer board were readable to within ± 1 mm. The discharge
2.3 Boundary Conditions in the flume was also measured by a rectangular sharp-crested
Boundary Conditions (B.C) of given flow are shown in Fig. 1. weir located in the gathering tank. The relative uncertainty in the
The boundaries of the mesh and their coordinate directions were discharged measurement was about 3%.
set as follows: Xmin – Specified velocity and fluid elevation crest
with a hydrostatic pressure distribution; Xmax – outflow; Ymin and 3.2 Experiment Procedure
Ymax – wall with no slip condition; Zmin – wall with no slip Water was pumped from the underground tank to feeding tank.
condition, Zmax − pressure boundary with a gauge pressure equal The feeding tank supplied water to the stilling tank. The water
to zero (atmospheric). The spillway and the breast wall boundary was delivered to the flume from the stilling tank through 25 cm-
were modeled as a surface with no slip. No-slip means tangential diameter pipeline that was adjusted by a valve. The experiments
velocity on the solid surface is zero and it is described by wall were carried out for various discharges, orifice opening D and
functions (Launder and Spalding, 1974). water head H for three spillway models. To prevent the effect of
It is notable that the inflow B.C (left boundary, Xmin) can be the tailwater on the pressure value, the tailwater was kept below
computed by one of two pressure boundary conditions, namely, the critical depth. This means that it had no influence on the
the static and the stagnation B.C. However, the velocity may be pressure taps in all experimental cases. The water surface profile,
not negligible as the numerical simulations were compared to the pressures, and the discharge were also measured carefully in
the scaled physical model that is performed in a laboratory each specific case. In short, some experimental variable para-
flume. It means that the approach velocity was signicant in this meters in this study were shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the flow
study. Therefore, to investigate the effect of the inflow B.C on condition at the upstream of the spillway was subcritical in all
the numerical results, two pressure boundary conditions, cases.
namely, the static and stagnation B.C would be applied in this
study. The input parameters of the test cases are presented in 4. Results and Discussion
Table 1.
4.1 Verification of the Numerical Model
3. Physical Model The Grid convergence index was originally proposed by Roache
(1997) as a general method for reporting the sensitivity of model
3.1 Description solutions to numerical discretization. It provides a uniform mea-
The experiments were conducted by the authors in the Hydraulic sure of convergence for grid refinement. This method is based on
Structures Laboratory at the National University of Civil Engi- the generalized Richardson extrapolation involving comparison
neering (NUCE), Hanoi, Vietnam. The spillways were designed of discrete solutions (Aydin and Ozturk, 2009). In this study, the
with three design heads (Hd), namely 10, 15, and 20 cm with 30, GCI values were calculated in three meshes spacing, namely, ∆h
30, and 35 cm in height (P), respectively. The spillway’s upstream = 0.007, 0.01, and 0.015 m. The result was the discharge flow
quadrant profile conform to an ellipse, which is similar to the rate in the E5 and E6 case. The computed details are shown in
ogee profile of the free overflow spillway found in USACE Table 2. In which, the value of f1, f2, f3 are the solutions that
(1992). Namely, the upstream quadrant profile was designed by correspond with the grid spacing ∆h1, ∆h2, ∆h3, respectively. Po is
2 2 2 2
equation x /A1 + z /B1 = 1 in this study. In addition, the down- the order of accuracy and ε is the relative error. The GCI value
stream profile of the spillway was a parabolic curve fabricated by with a safety factor equal to 1.25 (Wilcox, 2007) defined by
an equation x2 = 4Hd z (USBR, 1987). In addition, the breast wall equation:

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Nguyen Cong Thanh and Wang Ling-Ling
Table 2. Order of Accuracy and Grid Convergence Index
Q (l/s) GCI21,fine GCI32,fine
Test
Po ε21 ε32 Rc
case f1 f2 f3 % %
E5 47.92 48.00 48.30 3.09 0.0017 0.0062 0.27 0.10% 0.31%
E6 52.35 52.50 52.80 1.47 0.0029 0.0057 0.50 0.52% 0.87%
1.25ε
GCI = --------------
P
- (3)
R –1 o
where, R is a refinement factor between the coarse and fine grid
(R = hcoarse/hfine). The approximate relative error εi,i+1 can be
calculated as:
fi – fi + 1
εi, i + 1 = ----------------
- (4)
fi
In general, the order Po can be calculated as:
1 Standard k-ε Models
Po = --------------- ln φ32 /φ 21 + q ( Po ) (5)
ln ( r21 )
⎛ RP21 – s ⎞o
q ( Po ) = ln ⎜ --------------
-⎟ (6)
⎝ R32 – s⎠
P o
where, φ21 = f2 – f1 , φ32 = f3 – f2 , R21 = ∆h2 /∆h1 , R32 = ∆h3 /∆h2
and s = sign ( φ32 /φ21 ) . Clearly, the Eq. (5) must be iterated to
solve Po value before calculating the GCI number.
The discretization errors were indicated for three grids spacing
∆h = 0.007, 0.01, and 0.015 m, respectively. The refinement
factors R, not restricted as a constant number, were estimated as
R21 = 1.43 and R32 = 1.5 using the representative grid sizes.
According to Table 2, the numerical uncertainty in the fine-grid
solution is calculated as ranging from 0.1% to 0.52%, which
corresponded up to ± 0.27(l/s) approximately. There is a reduction
the GCI value for the successive grid refinements (GCI21 <
GCI32) in both the E5 and E6 cases. This result indicates that the
dependency of the numerical simulation on the cell size has been
reduced. Therefore, the grid independent solution can be said to
have been nearly achieved. Moreover, to evaluate the extrapolated
value of these solutions, a convergence condition of the system
must be determined (Ali et al., 2009). The possible convergence
conditions are monotonic convergence (0 < Rc < 1), oscillatory
convergence (Rc < 0) and divergence (Rc > 1). Table 2 shows that
0 < Rc < 1. It indicates that both the E5 and E6 solutions are
monotonic convergence. Where Rc is the convergence ratio and it
is determined by the formula:
ε21
Rc = -----
- (7)
ε32
Combining the GCI number and the convergence ratio condi-
tions for the above grids spacing, the further refinement of the
grid will not give much change in the results. This means that the
finer grid refinement is not further requirement in this work.
With the final grid size (∆h = 0.007 m), the simulation was found
to be catch boundary layer development and rapidly varying
flow conditions on the spillway surface. Furthermore, following
−4−
Table 3. Comparison Water Upstream Level and Discharge between
RNG k-ε and Standard k-ε Models with Experimental Data
Test E6 case WUL (cm) Qn (l/s)
RNG k-ε model 51.9 52.35
Standard k-ε model 51.5 52.1
Experiment 52.5 52.31
εre(RNG k-ε) 1.14% 0.08%
εre( k-ε)
1.9% 0.4%
the Flow Science (2010), the mesh size near the solid boundary
should be smaller 2 ~ 3 times the flow depth to catch correctly
the flow depth and hydraulic parameters. As a result, the grid
spacing ∆h = 0.007 m is suitable for this work.
4.2 Comparison between Two Turbulence RNG k-ε and
To verify the fact that the RNG k-ε model is superior to the
standard k-ε model in predicting the characteristics of the flow,
the experimental results are compared to the predictions of these
turbulence models. The discharge flow rate and the Water
Upstream Level (WUL) were used in this work. The value of
WUL is taken at position 1.5 m from the origin of spillway
toward upstream in the numerical modeling. This point was also
consistent with the position to observe the water level in the
physical model. These results are presented in Table 3 (εre is the
relative error compared to the experiment). According to Table 3,
the computed results of the two turbulence models are so close,
and the difference between these models is insignificant. However,
the RNG k-ε model’s result is more accurate than the standard k-
ε model in comparison with the experimental data. On the
contrary, the standard k-ε model is likely to be more time-saving
than the RNG k-ε model because of the simple algorithm. This is
reasonable because the RNG k-ε model considers the influence
of curvilinear streamline in some coefficients as compare to the
standard k-ε model (Wilcox, 2007). In short, both the turbulence
RNG k-ε model and the standard k-ε model could be applied to
obtain the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in this field. This
result is sufficiently accurate in hydraulic engineering applications.
However, for more accurate simulation, the turbulence model
RNG k-e will be used in successive subsections.
4.3 Comparison between Two Inflow Boundary Conditions
Both the inflow static and the stagnation pressure B.C are
applied to simulate the flow through the spillway with a breast
wall in this subsection. The numerical simulations of these inflows
B.C would be compared to the experimental data in the E5 and
E6 cases. This comparison is presented in Table 4 and Table 5.
According to Table 4, the stagnation pressure B.C shows the
WUL value closely with the measured data (0.08% and 0.06%,
respectively). However, the deviation of the discharge flow rate
is higher as compared to the static pressure B.C as well as the
experimental data. These errors are 3.13% and 2.27% in the E5
and E6 cases, respectively.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Physical and Numerical Model of Flow through the Spillways with a Breast Wall

Table 4. Comparison Water Upstream Level and Discharge between

Pressure Static and Stagnation for Inflow B.C (RNG k-ε
Model)
WUL (cm) Qn (l/s)
Inflow B.C Test case
Value εre Value εre
Static E5 50.8 0.78% 47.92 0.17%
pressure E6 51.90 1.14% 52.35 0.08%
Stagnation E5 51.16 0.08% 49.50 3.13%
pressure E6 52.47 0.06% 53.50 2.27%
E5 51.2 48.00
Experiment
E6 52.5 52.31

Fig. 2. Measured Discharge versus Computed Discharge Using

Table 5. Comparison Water Surface over Spillway between Pres- Eq. (8) and Eq. (9)
sure Static and Stagnation for Inflow B.C (RNG k-ε Model)
z/Hd physical models. According to Khatsuria (2005) and The State
No x/Hd
Static pressure Stagnation pressure
Experiment Economic and Trade Commission China (2003), the discharge
B.C B.C formulas of the spillway with a breast wall are written as follows,
E5 E6 E5 E6 E5 E6 respectively:
1 0 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.27 2.27
D
Qf1 = C od1 Bm D 2g⎛ He – ----⎞
2 0.3 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.19 2.21 2.22
(8)
3 0.6 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.10 2.11 ⎝ 2⎠
4 0.9 1.90 1.92 1.90 1.92 1.94 1.95
5 1.4 1.52 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.60 Qf2 = C od2 Bm D 2g( He – D ) (9)
6 1.7 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.33 1.33
In which, Cod1 and Cod2 are the discharged coefficient and in a
7 2 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.02
range of (0.6 ~ 0.85) that depends on the ratio of P/Hd and He /D.
εmre 6.43% 4.00% 4.81% 3.21%
The other parameters could be seen in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 showed a slight deviated correlation coefficient between
Furthermore, a comparison of the water surface profile behind Eq. (8) and Eq. (9) with the measured data. The correlation
2 2
the breast wall was shown in Table 5 (εmre is the maximum of coefficients are Rf1 = 0.95 and Rf2 = 0.9, respectively. These
2
relative error compared to experiment). The stagnation pressure values are smaller than R . The reason for this slight deviation is
B.C reveals that the water surface is higher than the static due to the selected wide range of the Cod1 and Cod2 values. In
pressure B.C, but it's still lower than the measured data. This is short, the numerical simulation obtains a higher accuracy than
reasonable because the trajectory of flow after the breast wall is these formulas.
further as WUL increases in the orifice flow. Additionally, the
error in calculating the water surface profile behind the breast 4.5 Water Surface Profiles from Upstream to Downstream
wall would reduce 1.62% and 0.79% in the E5 and E6 cases, To compare the water surface profile for more imagination, the
respectively as the stagnation pressure B.C is applied. fluid depth will be calculated from the water elevation to the
The computed discharge is more accurate using static pressure datum (see Fig. 1). The predictions of the RNG k-ε model for the
B.C, while the computed water surface profile is more accurate water surface profile are shown in Fig. 3. As seen in Fig. 3, the
using the stagnation pressure B.C. However, the deviation between measured data are higher than the predictions of the RNG k-ε
these inflows B.C is still smaller than 5%. This is acceptable in model. The maximum relative errors are approximate 6.43% and
hydraulic practical applications and depending on the input data 4.81%, respectively in all cases (see Table 5). Therefore, this
of the study. In short, the static pressure B.C will be used in the deviation needs to be considered carefully to avoid shortcoming
successive subsections because this B.C considers the influence in designing process side wall of spillway as the numerical
of the approach velocity in the laboratory flume simulation is applied. The main reason for above deviation may
be due to the smaller effect of side wall friction in numerical
4.4 Discharge Flow Rate through Spillway with a Breast Wall modeling as compared to the physical model.
Discharge flow rate from the numerical simulation and the Additionally, the numerical simulation also shows that the
physical model in six test cases are summarized and compared in bigger water head is, the higher water surface profile, which is
Table 6. There is a good agreement between the measured data behind the breast wall in the same head design Hd cases. The
and the RNG k-ε model predictions. The relative error is in a cause of this difference could be explained that the higher water
range of 0.05 ~ 0.17% and the correlation coefficient R2 ≅ 1. head is, the further trajectory of jet in orifice flow. On the
Furthermore, some familiar discharge formula in this field would contrary, the measured results also indicate that there is a deviation
be applied to compare to the results of the numerical and of water surface profile between numerical and physical model

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Nguyen Cong Thanh and Wang Ling-Ling
Fig. 3. Water Surface Profile through the Breast Wall: (a) Hd = 10
cm, (b) Hd = 15 cm, (c) Hd = 20 cm
behind breast wall in the case having the same value of Hd.
However, this discrepancy is not significant. Apart from the
influence of friction on the side wall, the occurrence of the
aeration phenomenon (white flow) also affects the precision of
water surface profile measurements in the laboratory. Thus, these
numerical results are sufficiently reliability in this study.
4.6 Pressure Head Vertical Distribution at the Section C-C
Figure 4 shows both the predicted and the experimental
pressure distribution pv(z) over the cross-section C-C in all
simulating cases. The results are only adequate in a range of two-
third of the orifice height D: The remaining height, what is close
the surface of spillway, has a significant deviation. As shown in
Fig. 4, the pressure distribution is completely smaller than the
hydrostatic pressure in both the experimental and the numerical
−6−
Fig. 4. Vertical Pressure Distribution at Crest of the Spillways
models in this study. The cause of deviation is due to the
procedure appreciable acceleration component or centrifugal
forces normal to the direction of flow. Additionally, the closer
crest boundary is, the higher velocity and the smaller the radius of
radius curvature of the streamline, thus, the larger shortage of
pressure as compared to the hydrostatic pressure. This was also
mentioned in Dewals et al. (2006), and he indicated that the
pressure distribution depends on the Froude number (Fr) and
curvature of solid boundary.
Furthermore, Kim and Park (2005) or Tadayon and Ramamurthy
(2009) used the numerical method and turbulence modeling to
calculate the vertical pressure distribution at crest spillway and
compared to experiment. They showed that the model predictions
agreed well with the experimental data. However, that is the
gradually varied flow in their works. On the contrary, the flow is
a rapid transition from subcritical at the upstream to supercritical
at the downstream of the breast wall in this study. This transition
is reflected by the Froude number (Fr) in the computational
Fig. 5. Froude Number Contour Field in Computational Domain:
(a) E5 case, (b) E6 case
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Physical and Numerical Model of Flow through the Spillways with a Breast Wall

Table 6. Comparison between Simulated and Measured Discharge reliability in this study. The comparison of numerical simulation
Physical CFD between the new and original models in E6 case is presented in
Test case He /D model prediction εre Table 7.
Qe (l/s) Qn (l/s)
E1 1.50 35.26 35.30 0.11% 5. Conclusions
E2 1.79 42.01 42.03 0.05%
E3 1.56 40.85 40.82 0.07% The flow through under the spillway with a breast wall is
E4 1.85 47.96 47.99 0.06% simulated in this study, which involve highly curvilinear streamlines
E5 1.60 48 47.92 0.17% with low and average-head operation. To estimate the sensitive
E6 1.73 52.31 52.35 0.08% of model predictions to numerical discretization, the GCI
number is calculated with three grids spacing, which change
Table 7. Comparison Water Upstream Elevation Level and Dis- from the coarse grid to the fine grid. The result shows that the
charge between Bm = 1 m and Bm = 0. 4m in E6 Case grid-independent study is guaranteed for the final simulation
Test E6 case WUL (cm) Qn (l/s) with ∆h = 0.007 m. Additionally, both the standard k-ε and the
Bm = 0.4 m model 51.90 52.35 RNG k-ε turbulence models along with the VOF scheme and the
Bm = 1 m model 51.89 52.27 FAVOR method enable to obtain agreeably accurate characteri-
εre 0.02% 0.15% stics of the flow through the spillway with a breast wall. These
characteristics are the discharge capacity, the water surface proles,
and the vertical pressure distributions. Moreover, the RNG k-ε
domain and illustrated in Fig. 5. Therefore, this is probably a part model reveals more accurate predictions than the standard k-ε
of this pressure deviation. Although the coefficients in RNG k-ε model, but the standard k-ε model might be more time-saving
model have considered the effect of highly curvilinear flows than the RNG k-ε model in practice. Furthermore, both the static
than the standard k-ε model, the deviation of vertical pressure and the stagnation pressure inflow B.C can be applied in numerical
between numerical and physical model is significant in the modeling depending on the desired level of accurate simulation.
region nearby the crest boundary. Fortunately, this difference In short, with the proper validation, the numerical modeling of
may still be acceptable in hydraulic engineering practice. flow through the spillways could be used to determine flow
Additionally, to find the influence of mesh spacing to vertical characteristics of spillways with a breast wall. These models
pressure distribution, the finer grid spacing ∆h = 0.003 m has could be executed for various flow configurations that one
been conducted to calculate in E6 case. This result shows that encounters in engineering practice, without using high cost and
there is a slight deviation between the final and finer grid spacing much time as in the physical model.
cases. According to this numerical simulation, the smaller grid
spacing, the lower pressure value, however, the relative error is Acknowledgements
less than 2%. Moreover, the smaller grid spacing, the larger time
calculated consumption. Thus, the reduction of grid spacing is This work was supported by the National Natural Science
not necessary in further work. Foundation of China (Grant No. 51179058, 51479058), the State
key program of National Science Fund of China (Grant No.
4.7 The Influence of Model’s Width on the Final Result 51239003), the Special Fund for Public Welfare of Water
The flow, generally, through the breast wall is a 2-D scheme as Resources Ministry (Grant No. 201201017) and the 111 Project
the effect of piers and abutments does not consider. The presented (Grant No. B12032). The authors wish to thank the anonymous
experiments had been conducted in a flume with Plexiglas sides reviewer for his suggestion for improving the quality of paper.
and no piers spillway models. For the dimension of the flume The authors are also sincerely thankful to the author quoted in
and the flow characteristics, therefore, the flow may be considered this paper.
as the 2-D schemes in this study; or the influence of side wall
could be negligible in numerical modeling. However, to guarantee References
certainly this matter, the numerical modeling will be examined
with the new model (Bm = 1 m) in E6 case. According to numerical Ali, M. S. M., J. Doolan, C., and Wheatley, V. (2009). “Grid conver-
simulation, the result shows that the difference between discharge gence study for a two-dimensional simulation of flow around square
and WUL values of the two models are quite small and not cylinder at a low Reynolds number.” Proc., 7th International Confer-
significant. Furthermore, the vertical pressure distribution at the ence on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO,
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1-6.
section C-C had also been investigated nearby the wall (Ymin and
Ansar, M. and Chen, Z. (2009). “Generalized flow rating equations at
Ymax B.C) and compared to the original case (Bm = 0.4 m). The prototype gated spillways.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol.
result indicates that the effect of model’s width is also insignificant. 135, No. 7, pp. 602-608, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(2009)135:
The difference is also relatively small in comparison with the 7(602).
final result. As a result, the using of Bm = 0.4 m is sufficient Aydin, M. C. and Ozturk, M. (2009). “Verification and validation of a

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Nguyen Cong Thanh and Wang Ling-Ling
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model for air entrainment at
spillway aerators.” Canadian journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 36,
No. 5, pp. 826-836, DOI: 10.1139/l09-017.
Bhajantri, M. R., Eldho, T. I., and Deolalikar, P. B. (2007). “Numerical
modelling of turbulent flow through spillway with gated operation.”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
72, No. 2, pp. 221-243, DOI: 10.1002/nme.2016.
Bhosekar, V., Jothiprakash, V., and Deolalikar, P. (2011). “Orifice
spillway aerator: Hydraulic design.” Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, Vol. 138, No. 6, pp. 563-572, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-
7900.0000548.
Chanel, P. G. and Doering, J. C. (2008). “Assessment of spillway
modeling using computational fluid dynamics.” Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp. 1481-1485, DOI: 10.1139/
l08-094.
Dewals, B. J., Erpicum, S., Archambeau, P., Detrembleur, S., and
Pirotton, M. (2006). “Depth-integrated flow modelling taking into
account bottom curvature.” Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 44,
No. 6, pp. 785-795, DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2006.9521729.
Ferziger, J. H. and Peri, M. (2002). Computational method for fluid
dynamcis, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York.
Flow Science (2010). User manual V.10, Los Alamos, NM.
Hirt, C. W. and Nichols, B. D. (1981). “Volume of Fluid (VOF) method
for the dynamics of free boundaries.” Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 201-225, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)
90145-5.
Khatsuria, R. M. (2005). Hydraulics of spillways and energy dissipators,
Marcel Dekker, 270 Madison Avenue, New York.
Kim, D. and Park, J. (2005). “Analysis of flow structure over ogee-
spillway in consideration of scale and roughness effects by using
CFD model.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
−8−
161-169, DOI: 10.1007/bf02829067.
Launder, B. E. and Spalding, D. B. (1974). “The numerical computation
of turbulent flows.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 269-289, DOI: 10.1016/0045-7825
(74)90029-2.
Novak, P., Guinot, V., Jeffrey, A., and Reeve, D. E. (2010). Hydraulic
modeling-an introduction (1st ed.), Spon Press, New York.
Roache, P. J. (1997). “Quantification of uncertainty in computational
fluid dynamics.” Annual review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 29, pp.
123-160, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.29.1.123.
Sankaranarayanan, S. and Rao, H. S. (1996). “Finite element analysis of
free surface flow through gates.” International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Fluids, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 375-392, DOI: 10.1002/
(sici)1097-0363(19960315)22:5.
Savage, B. and Johnson, M. (2001). “Flow over ogee spillway: Physical
and numerical model case study.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, Vol. 127, No. 8, pp. 640-649, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9429
(2001)127:8(640).
Tadayon, R. and Ramamurthy, A. (2009). “Turbulence modeling of
flows over circular spillways.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 4, pp. 493-498, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)ir.
1943-4774.0000012.
The State Economic and Trade Commission, C. (2003). Design
specification for River-bank spillway (DL/T 5166-2002), China
Electric Power Press.
USACE (1992). EM 1110-2-1603 Hydraulic design of spillway,
Washington DC.
USBR (1987). Design of small dams (3rd ed.), United States Department
of the Interior.
Wilcox, D. C. (2007). Turbulence modeling for CFD (3rd ed.), DCW
Industries Inc, California.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering