Farklı Geçirgen Kontrol Barajlarının Sayısal Analizi

Abstract

Klasik kontrol barajları, taşkın sırasında taşınan tortu ve ahşap malzeme sebebiyle kısa sürede tıkanmaktadır. Bu nedenle klasik kontrol barajların tutma kapasitesini artırmak veya tıkanma süresini uzatmak için yeni modellerin geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Araştırmacılar, son yıllarda alternatif modeler üzerinde çalışmışlardır. Ancak bugüne kadar bu yapıların akış üzerindeki etkileri literatürde çok az ilgi görmüştür. Bu çalışmada; yatay, dikey ve açılı açıklıklı kontrol barajların akış özellikleri iki fazlı (su ve hava) akış için sayısal olarak incelenmiştir. Sayısal modelde kullanılan sınır şartları ve çözüm ağı, literatürdeki deneysel sonuçlar kullanılarak doğrulanmıştır. Toplamda 12 analizin gerçekleştirildiği bu çalışma için dört farklı baraj modeli (klasik, yatay açıklıklı, dikey açıklıklı ve açılı açıklıklı) ve üç farklı birim debi (0,04; 0,03 ve 0,02 m3 s-1 m-1) kullanılmıştır. Sayısal analizler için açık kaynak kodlu OpenFOAM yazılımı ve k-ω SST türbülans modeli kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, geçirgen kontrol baraj modelleri arasında en yüksek enerji sönümleme oranı; maksimum birim debide Model-3'te gözlenirken, minimum birim debide Model-2 ile elde edilmiştir. Açıklıkların dikey veya açılı konumlandırılmasının düşük birim debide enerji sönümleme oranına bir etkisi olmazken, maksimum birim debide dikey modelin (Model-3) daha verimli olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Geçirgen kontrol barajı
• OpenFOAM
• yatay açıklıklı kontrol barajı
• düşey açıklıklı kontrol barajı
• açılı açıklıklı kontrol barajı
• Hesaplamalı Akışkanlar Dinamiği.

Numerical Analysis of Different Slit-Check Dams

Abstract

Check dam designs have attracted attention recently due to the clogging of classical check dam structures with sediment and wooden material carried during the flood quickly. These structures regulate flow characteristics and debris flow. However, until now, the impacts of these structures on flow characteristics have received little attention in the literature. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new models to increase these structures' trapping capacity or extend the clogging time. In this study, the flow characteristics of check dams with horizontal, vertical, and angled openings were numerically analyzed for two-phase (water and air) flow. The numerical model was validated using experimental results in the literature. For the study in which twelve analyses were performed, four different check dam models (i.e., check dam with the classical, the narrow horizontal opening, the vertical openings, and angled openings) and three different unit flows (0.04, 0.03, and 0.02 m3 s-1 m-1) were used in the analysis. The open-source software OpenFOAM and the k-ω SST turbulence model were used for the numerical analysis using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method. The highest energy dissipation rate among slit check dam models was seen in Model-3 at maximum unit flow, whereas it was attained in Model-2 at minimum unit flow. There is no difference in the energy dissipation rate at low unit flows whether the openings are positioned vertically or angled; nevertheless, the vertical model (Model-3) is observed to be more efficient at maximum unit flow.

Keywords

• Slit check dam
• OpenFOAM
• horizontal openings
• vertical openings
• angled openings
• CFD

References

1. Erol U, Kızmaz Y, Özden A, Ceyhunlu Aİ. Evaluation of the Transportation Infrastructure Vulnerability in Kaynarca, Sakarya Basin from a Flood Spread Risk Perspective n.d. https://doi.org/10.52114/apjhad.1128037.
2. Abdelkareem M, Mansour AM. Risk assessment and management of vulnerable areas to flash flood hazards in arid regions using remote sensing and GIS-based knowledge-driven techniques. Nat Hazards 2023;117:2269–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-023-05942-X/FIGURES/15.
3. Ceribasi G, Ceyhunlu AI. Generation of 1D and 2D flood maps of Sakarya river passing through Geyve district of Sakarya city in Turkey. Nat Hazards 2021;105:631–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-020-04327-8/FIGURES/12.
4. Abbasi NA, Xu X, Lucas-Borja ME, Dang W, Liu B. The use of check dams in watershed management projects: Examples from around the world. Sci Total Environ 2019;676:683–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.04.249.
5. Castillo VM, Mosch WM, García CC, Barberá GG, Cano JAN, López-Bermúdez F. Effectiveness and geomorphological impacts of check dams for soil erosion control in a semiarid Mediterranean catchment: El Cárcavo (Murcia, Spain). CATENA 2007;70:416–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CATENA.2006.11.009.
6. D’Agostino V, Degetto M, Righetti M. Experimental investigation on open check dam for coarse woody debris control 2000;20:201–12.
7. Lucas-Borja ME, Piton G, Yu Y, Castillo C, Antonio Zema D. Check dams worldwide: Objectives, functions, effectiveness and undesired effects. CATENA 2021;204:105390. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CATENA.2021.105390.
8. Armanini A, Larcher M. Rational Criterion for Designing Opening of Slit-Check Dam. J Hydraul Eng 2001;127:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:2(94).

9. Schwindt S, Franca MJ, De Cesare G, Schleiss AJ. Analysis of mechanical-hydraulic bedload deposition control measures. Geomorphology 2017;295:467–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2017.07.020.
10. Lyu X bo, You Y, Wang Z, Liu J feng, Sun H, Zhao W yu. Characteristics of gully bed scour and siltation between check dams. J Mt Sci 2023;20:49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11629-022-7474-7/METRICS.
11. Pan HL, Huang JC, Wei LQ, Ou GQ. A Study on Scouring Laws Downstream of Debris Flow Sabo Dams. Appl Mech Mater 2012;170–173:2071–6. https://doi.org/10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/AMM.170-173.2071.
12. Akçalı E. Taşkın ve Rüsubat Kontrolünde Yeni Öneri: Gemiburnu Tip Geçirgen Bent. Tek Dergi 2022;33:12847–61. https://doi.org/10.18400/TEKDERG.880224.
13. Catella M, Paris E, Solari L. Case Study: Efficiency of Slit-Check Dams in the Mountain Region of Versilia Basin. J Hydraul Eng 2005;131:145–52. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:3(145).
14. Piton G, Recking A. Design of Sediment Traps with Open Check Dams. I: Hydraulic and Deposition Processes. J Hydraul Eng 2015;142:04015045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001048.
15. Piton G, Recking A. Design of Sediment Traps with Open Check Dams. II: Woody Debris. J Hydraul Eng 2015;142:04015046. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001049.
16. Aydin MC, Aytemur HS, Ulu AE. Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Hydraulic Performance of Slit-check Dams in Subcritical Flow Condition. Water Resour Manag 2022;36:1693–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11269-022-03103-6/FIGURES/11.
17. Ikinciogullari E. Efficiency of Mesh Generation Utilities on Energy Dissipation for a Stepped Spillway Model. ICHEAS 3rd Int. Conf. Appl. Sci., Cape Town, South Africa: 2023.
18. Ikinciogullari E. A novel design for stepped spillway using staggered labyrinth trapezoidal steps. Flow Meas Instrum 2023;93:102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FLOWMEASINST.2023.102439.
19. Ikinciogullari E, Emiroglu ME, Aydin MC. Comparison of Scour Properties of Classical and Trapezoidal Labyrinth Weirs. Arab J Sci Eng 2022;47:4023–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13369-021-05832-Z/FIGURES/15.