Comparison between hydraulic and structural based anti-vortex methods at intakes

. Surface vortices are the main reason of flow instability and entraining air and debris into the intakes. Using structural based anti-vortex facilities is a common method for dissipating vortices over the intakes. In the present experimental study, performance of a new hydraulic based anti-vortex m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European physical journal plus 2017-08, Vol.132 (8), p.329, Article 329
Main Authors: Monshizadeh, Morteza, Tahershamsi, Ahmad, Rahimzadeh, Hassan, Sarkardeh, Hamed
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Air entrainment
Applied and Technical Physics
Atomic
Civil engineering
Complex Systems
Condensed Matter Physics
Flow stability
Fluid flow
Froude number
Hydraulic jets
Hydraulics
Mathematical and Computational Physics
Methods
Molecular
Optical and Plasma Physics
Physics
Physics and Astronomy
Regular Article
Theoretical
Vortices
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:. Surface vortices are the main reason of flow instability and entraining air and debris into the intakes. Using structural based anti-vortex facilities is a common method for dissipating vortices over the intakes. In the present experimental study, performance of a new hydraulic based anti-vortex method is compared with available structural based anti-vortex methods over the horizontal intakes. In the new approach dynamically high-risk surface vortices are eliminated by imposing a hydraulic jet at the formed vortex zone over the intake. The injected jet acts as a point source of external momentum in order to change the hydrodynamic condition of the formed vortex flow. Results show that the investigated hydraulic based anti-vortex device is more flexible and more hydraulically efficient than the structural based anti-vortex methods, especially when the intake Froude number is higher than 1.3.
ISSN:2190-5444
2190-5444
DOI:10.1140/epjp/i2017-11608-4