Impact Analysis of Overflow Spillway on U/S Flows & Hydraulic

Structure using CFD Technique A Case Study of Marala HPP

Ali Nawaz Khan1, Muhammad Kaleem Sarwar2, Dr. Sajid Mehmood3, Azhar Bashir Magsi4
1.
2.
3.
4.

Research fellow and corresponding author, Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of
Engineering and Technology Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: alinawaz.ce@gmail.com,
Assistant Professor, Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology
Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: eng_Kaleem@yahoo.com
Assistant Professor, Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology
Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: smahmoodpk@yahoo.com
Project Manager, Sinotec Co., Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: azhar_magsi@yahoo.com
Abstract
Barrages and canal falls are considered as a readily available option for hydropower generation as the pre-requisites
of water and head are conveniently available on such sites. Most important aspect of such scheme is to set the levels
of hydraulic structures so that there is absolutely no disturbance to the irrigation flows which is the basic purpose of
the barrage and canal network. At the same time finding the optimum level for the proposed structures so that the
maximum hydropower benefits are yielded through the scheme without compromising the safety. Present study intends
to investigate the same for Marala Hydropower Project (MHP) proposed on Upper Chenab Canal (UCC) off-shooting
from Marala Barrage on River Chenab. In order to define the optimum crest level of the spillway such that there is no
negative impact on the discharge passing capacity of the UCC head regulator, two-pronged strategy has been applied
i.e. using computational flow dynamics (CFD) computer software and analytical approach. The results of modelling
are first compared with the physical model of the said scheme for validation. This study will be helpful for any future
hydropower development schemes on irrigation canals close to barrages.
Key Words: Low Head Hydropower Development, Canal Regulation, Numerical Modelling, FLOW-3D

1. INTRODUCTION
Water is diverted into a canal from a pool behind a barrage
through a structure called the canal head regulator. This
structure is also used as a regulation device for controlling
the amount of water passing into the canal with the help of
adjustable gates [1].
Spillway is one of the foremost important structures of a
dam project. It enables the project to dispose off the excess
water or negotiate floods in either controlled or
uncontrolled manner in order to ensure the safety of the
project. Spillway should be designed with utmost care and
importance must be given to assign a design discharge
capacity for spillway structure to avoid overtopping.
Conventional spillway, which is also called Ogee spillway,
has four main parts; the upstream crest profile, downstream
crest profile, the sloping face, and the energy dissipater at
the toe. Upstream of the crest, the flow is subcritical (or
gradually varying); the flow changes its state from
subcritical to supercritical after the crest because the crest
is followed by a steep sloping face. Spillway flows are
essentially rapidly varying flows with pronounced
curvature of the streamlines. Two processes simultaneously
occur in the flow over the crest: formation and gradual

thickening of the turbulent boundary layer along the profile

and gradual increase in the velocity and decrease in the
depth of main flow [2].
To obtain most of reliable and acceptable hydraulic
parameters involving various hydraulic structures including
dams, river training works, spillway operation, flow
conditions upstream and downstream of a hydraulic
structure, physical modelling is considered to be the most
widely used research technique around the globe [3].
In order to develop a hydropower scheme on the canal very
near to the barrage/headwork, the most important aspect is
to set the levels of the hydraulic structures in consideration
such that there is no disturbance to the irrigational flow of
the canal which is the prime function of an irrigation canal.
To conduct such a study, physical and numerical models are
developed and flow behavior is observed and analyzed for
the canal reach in question [4].
Physical modelling comprise of scaling down the project
components in a controlled environment of hydraulic
laboratories with the best possible projection of the proto
type.
Generally, physical modelling is applied at the detailed
engineering design stage to confirm the viable operation of

1|Page

the proto type and to develop best possible operational

guidelines for the project [5].
Physical modelling does not facilitate the study of different
alternatives to be done simultaneously. In order to do so in
physical modelling, such modifications are modelled and
conducted one after another which is laborious and very
expensive job.

2
Material and Methods
2.1
Data Collection
Data was collected including UCC canal cross and
longitudinal sections, existing and proposed hydraulic
structures and project layout 2D drawings, hydrological
data and results of physical modelling which was conducted
at Hydraulic Research Station, Nandipur, Gujranwala.

In the modern era, with the use of high performance and

efficient computers and CFD techniques, the solution of the
above problem lies in numerical modelling of the hydraulic
structures. In which, various modifications and alternatives
can be modelled, simulated and studies with a lot lesser
effort and expense than physical modelling [6].
1.1. Marala Hydropower Project
Marala Hydropower Project is proposed on Upper Chenab
Canal which off takes from Marala Headworks. Marala
hydropower project was proposed to be designed for the
discharge of 420 cumecs and net rated head of 2.16 m
resulting four (04) pit type Kaplan turbines to be installed
with a total power potential of 7.64 MW and mean annual
energy of 43.65 GWh. A power channel is proposed on the
right bank side of UCC which will house the powerhouse
for the said scheme. The spillway is proposed in the main
UCC channel to cater for the surplus flows [7].
Adjustment/Fixation of crest level of proposed spillway of
Marala HPP will involve its impact on upstream flow levels
which will be ultimately effect the discharging capacity of
head regulator of UCC and eventually the pond level of
Marala barrage due to close proximity of both hydraulic
structures.
So, an in-depth analysis is required to analyze the impact of
various crest levels of the proposed spillway with reference
to the discharge passing capacities of existing canal head
regulator and proposed spillway.

Figure 2: Birdseye view of 3D model

2.2

Setting Up of CFD Model

Three dimensional (3D) drawings were developed from 2D

drawings and then converted into stereo lithographic (stl)
files in order to be used in Flow 3D software. Three
different files were created in order to study and analyze
three scenarios of different spillway crest levels. In next
step, meshing of imported Stl. file images was carried out.
The extent of mesh domain on upstream and downstream of
structure is defined in such a way that it could show the fluid
movement and its impact properly. Also, to increase the
accuracy, nested mesh option was utilized [8]. The
boundary conditions applied for this model include, volume
flow rate, specified pressure, symmetry, wall and outflow.
After specifying boundaries of the model, fluids were added
on the upstream and downstream sides of the structure as
initial condition [9]. After pre-processing explicit and fluid
flow solver option were selected to solve Reynold Average
Navier Stokes equation (RANS) which is prime equation
used by Flow-3D for simulation [10].
2.3
Sensitivity Analysis
Generally Flow 3D reacts very sensitive towards the
Turbulence Model and Boundary Conditions. There are
various turbulence models available in Flow 3D which
include RNG model, Large Eddy Simulation model, K-
model and RSN model. Due to flexibility of RNG model
and lesser time required for its simulation, it is preferred in
this study [11]. Four scenarios of boundary conditions were
used for sensitivity analysis as shown in Table 1.

Figure 1: Plan and of proposed Marala Hydropower Project

2.4
Model Validation
Validation of numerical model is most important aspect of
CFD modelling to evaluate the level of accuracy of the
2|Page

model. Validation process indicates the degree of accuracy

of the model. A proper validation process will involve
comparing the numerical model results with actual
performance of the actual structure. For this study no actual
structure has been built yet so physical model study results
are used for the validation of CFD model.
Table 1: Different Scenario of Boundary Conditions

Set

X
min

X
max

Y
min

Y
max

Z
min

Z
max

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP:
O:
S:
V:
W:

Specified Pressure
Outflow
Symmetry
Volume Flow Rate
Wall

2.5
Flow Modelling Procedure
Case-1 was developed for validation of the CFD model by
using the same parameters of flow conditions as adopted in
physical model study. In addition to that, three cases (Case2 to Case-4) were developed and simulated independently
for analyzing the impact of various crest levels of proposed
spillway i.e. for Case-2 crest level was fixed at 243.688
masl, for Case-3 it was set at 243.535 masl and Case-4 it
was fixed at 243.840 masl. In order to simulate the
undisturbed pond level of Marala barrage, the pond level
was fixed at 247.25 masl. Size 3 mesh was selected for the
whole reach and nested mesh of size 1 was used at head
regulator and spillway areas for increased accuracy.

situation, X max boundary was set to Specified Pressure as

well and level was given 244.5 for the first run. By doing
this, the model was able to generate the required flow
conditions and then in the restart simulations, the Outflow
boundary condition was selected so that the model may
attain the level on the downstream of spillway following its
own pattern. Set 1 and 3 were found to be relatively more
accurate and were used for further analysis.
3.2
Model Validation
Results of CFD model were compared with that of physical
model results and also with the results of analytical
computations. Summary of comparison is presented in
Table 2 and Figure 3 below which reveals that percentage
difference of 0.157, 0.163 and 0.117 (lower than physical)
is recorded for the water levels upstream of spillway,
downstream of head regulator and upstream of head
regulator. These results appear to be quite acceptable and
reason for such low values of difference is there is less
margin of level difference in case of canals so the difference
in CFD and physical models is also on lesser side.
Table 2: Comparison of CFD and Physical Models

Parameter
CL of SW
Max Q
U/S of SW
D/S of HR
U/S of HR
Q:
U/S:
D/S:
SW:
HR:
CL:

Moreover, analytical computations were also performed

using standard procedures in order to make the comparison
more comprehensive.
3
Results and Discussion
3.1
Sensitivity Analysis
Total four sets of boundary conditions were used to first
simulate the model and then analyze under defined
parameters and environment. Fixation of Marala barrage
pond level was done by using Specified Pressure option for
X min. However, for Case-1 555 m3/s was also entered as
Volume Flow Rate in order to generate the physical model
conditions. In General, Outflow is selected for X max
boundary but it is successful for a model where the
difference of level is big. In case of canal falls, the
difference of level is comparatively smaller and if the
Outflow option is selected, it may require many simulations
to become stable and produce the results. To overcome this

Physical
FLOW
Model
3D
243.688
243.688
555
555
246.40
246.013
246.75
246.346
247.20
246.91
Discharge in m3/s
Upstream
Downstream
Spillway
Head Regulator
Crest Level

%
Difference
0.157
0.163
0.117

All levels have masl units.

248

WaterLevelsinUCC

246
AnalyticalComputations
Flow3D
244

PhysicalModel

CANALREACH

Figure 3: Comparison of Water Levels

3|Page

3.3
Results of Flow 3D Scenarios
After successful validation of CFD model, the three
scenarios (Case-2, Case-3 and Case-4) each having
different crest level of proposed spillway were simulated
and results were obtained for analysis.

3.3.2
Case-3 (Crest at 243.535 masl)
For Case-3, the spillway crest was set to the elevation of
243.535 masl (799 feet). Following figures show the
rendered images at the end of simulation.

3.3.1
Case-2 (Crest at 243.688 masl)
For each case, pond level of Marala barrage was fixed to
247.25 masl. For Case-2, the spillway crest was set to the
elevation of 243.688 masl (799.5 feet). Following figures
show the rendered images at the end of simulation.

Figure 7: Graphical Presentation of Water Levels

Figure 4: Preview of Head Regulator

Figure 8: Preview of Case-3 Spillway

Following results including water levels at various locations

and discharge passed through the system are probed
through the analysis of Case-3
Figure 5: Preview of Spillway

Following results including water levels at various locations

and discharge passed through the system are probed
through the analysis of Case-2

Figure 9: Results of Case-3

Figure 6: Results of Case-2

3.3.3
Case-4 (Crest at 243.840 masl)
For Case-4, the spillway crest was set to the elevation of
243.840 masl (800 feet). Following figures show the
rendered images at the end of simulation.

4|Page

FLOW 3D results are lesser than analytically

computed results
FLOW 3D results are higher than analytically
computed results

DischargeinCumecs

SpillwayCrestLevelvsDischargethrough
H/R

Figure 10: Preview of Spillway

644.2
640
631
623
AnalyticalComputations

616
601.7

Flow3D

243.5352

243.6876

243.8400

Figure 13: Comparison of CFD & Analytical Computations

3.5

Impact on Hydropower Potential of MHP

As three scenarios in terms of different spillway crest level

have been developed for this study. Their impact on the
hydropower generation for the proposed MHP are also
looked into. As the crest level of proposed spillway is
increased, the available head is increased as well which
ultimately increases the power potential of the project. Crest
level of proposed spillway and power potential are directly
proportional. But in previous discussion, it was discovered
that the crest level of proposed spillway and discharge
passing capacity of UCC head regulator are inversely
proportional.

Figure 11: Preview of Head Regulator

Table 4: Summary of Q & P for all scenarios

Alternative
Case-3
Case-2
Case-4

Figure 12: Results of Case-4

Table 3: Comparison of CFD and Analytical Computations

Q (CFD)
640
631
616

Q (AC)
644.2
623
601.7

% Diff
-0.65
1.26
2.32

SpillwayCrestLevelvsQ&P
8.5

660
640
620
600
580

8.18
7.64

7.5

7.1

AnalyticalComputations
Flow3D
PowerPotential

243.5352

243.6876

6.5
243.8400

Figure 14: Spillway Crest vs Discharge & Power

5|Page

PowerMW

As depicted above, analytical computations were also

performed for each case to establish a comparison in order
to verify the results of CFD model. The comparison in terms
of discharge passing capacity of UCC head regulator is
tabulated as under:

Case
3
2
4

Power Potential
(MW)
7.10
7.64
8.18

CFD Model vs Analytical Computations

DischargeinCumecs

3.4

Max Q (FLOW 3D)

m3/s
640
631
616

4
I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Analysis of results obtained from the study reveal

that the there is an inverse relationship between
crest level of the proposed spillway and the
discharge passing capacity of UCC head regulator.
On the contrary, it can be said that the relationship
between the power potential of the proposed MHP
and crest level of proposed spillway is directly
proportional to each other.
Analysing different scenarios with respect to
various crest levels of the proposed spillway, it is
safe to conclude that the crest level at 243.688
efficiently serves the purpose of generating
enough head for hydropower generation without
disturbing the discharge passing capacity of
existing UCC head regulator and hence
irrigational requirements.
The existing capacity of head regulator of UCC is
792.75 m3/s whereas, the existing capacity of UCC
system is 477 m3/s. By development of power
potential of 7.64 MW using head across UCC head
regulator, the capacity of UCC head regulator will
be reduced from 792.75 m3/s to 622.87 m3/s.
Hence UCC head regulator will have about 23%
higher capacity than the system.
By development of power potential of 7.10 MW,
the capacity of UCC head regulator will be
reduced from 792.75 m3/s to 645 m3/s which is
about 26% higher capacity than the system.
By development of power potential of 8.18 MW,
the capacity of UCC head regulator will be
reduced from 792.75 m3/s to 604 m3/s which is
about 21% higher capacity than the system.
For future development of hydel power near head
regulators on barrages, the capacity of the system
should be considered about 20% higher for future
irrigation system enhancements.
In order to perform CFD modelling, it is
recommended to use a computing machine with
high-end specifications. This will reduce the
simulation time considerably and also will enable
to use smaller mesh size to increase the accuracy
of the results.
In complex flow situations, physical modelling is
considered to be the basic source of study.
However, once a numerical model of the same is
developed and calibrated with the physical model,
only then it can be used for various analysis with
certain level of accuracy. Therefore, it is
concluded that hybrid modelling technique is the
answer to the modelling question.

[1] IIT Kharagpur, Water Resources Engineering Module

3 Irrigation Engineering Principles, Version 2, pp 505, 2008

References

[2] Mays, L. W., Hydraulic Design Handbook, McGrawHill book company, 1999
[3] Eric Lesleighter, Bronson McPherson, Karen Riddette,
Jon Williams, Modelling Procedures used for the Spillway
Upgrade for Lake Manchester Dam GHD Publication, pp:
08, 2008
[4] Andaroodi, M. R, Standardization of civil engineering
works of small high-head hydropower plants and
development of an optimization tool, Laboratory of
Hydraulic Constructions (LCH), Ecole Polytechnique
Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland publication no.
ISSN 1661-1179, 2006
[5] M R Bhajantri, T I Eldho,P B Deolalikar,
Hydrodynamic modelling of flow over a spillway using a
two-dimensional finite volume-based numerical model
Sadhana Vol. 31, Part 6, pp: 744-745, 2006
[6] Chanel, P.G and J.C, Doering, Assessment of spillway
modelling using computational fluid dynamics, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, pp: 1481-1485, 2008.
[7] Irrigation and Power (I & P) Department Punjab,
Marala (UCC 0) HPP Feasibility Study, pp. III-1, 2005
[8] D.K.H. Ho, K.M. Boyes and S.M. Donohoo,
Investigation of Spillway Behaviour under Increased
Maximum Flood by Computational Fluid Dynamics
Technique 14th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference
Adelaide University, Adelaide, Australia, pp: 577, 2001
[9] Kevin M. Sydor and Pamela J. Waterman, Engineering
and Design: The Value of CFD Modeling in Designing a
Hydro
Plant
Hydro-Review,
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume29/issue-6/articles/, 2010
[10] USBR, Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, Existing
spillway modeling, Discharge Capacity Studies, California,
USA, 2009.
[11] Flow Science, Inc., Flow-3D user manuals, Version
9.2. Flow Science, Inc., Santa Fe, N.M, 2007.

6|Page