Orifice plate energy dissipater as well as plug energy dissipater, as a kind of effective energy dissipater
with characteristics of simple structure, convenient construction and high energy dissipation ratio, has become
welcomed more and more by hydraulics researchers. The two kinds of energy dissipaters with sudden reduction
and sudden enlargement forms are similar in energy dissipation mechanism, but there are differences in energy
dissipation characteristics and cavitation characteristics. In the present paper, the differences between orifice plate
and plug in energy loss coefficient, relating to their energy dissipation ratio, in the backflow region length, relating
to their energy loss coefficient, and in the lowest wall pressure coefficient, relating to their cavitations risk, were
analyzed by numerical simulations and physical experiment, and their features in above three aspects were also
revealed. The results of research in the present paper demonstrate that the backflow region length of orifice plate
is longer than that of plug at the same contraction ratio, the lowest wall pressure coefficient of plug is smaller
than that of orifice plate at the same contraction ratio, and the energy loss coefficient of orifice plate is bigger
than that of plug, which illustrates that plug is superior to orifice plate in resistance cavitation damage at the
same contraction ratio.
AI Wan-zheng1* (艾万政), WU Jian-hua2 (吴建华)
. Comparison on Hydraulic Characteristics Between Orifice Plate and Plug[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University(Science), 2014
, 19(4)
: 476
-480
.
DOI: 10.1007/s12204-014-1527-1
[1] Zhou Jian-ping, Yang Ze-yan, Chen Guan-fu. Status and challenges of high dam in China [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2006, 37(12): 1433-1438 (in Chinese).
[2] Li Zhong-yi, Chen Xia, Chen Mei-fa. Study on hydraulic problems of spillway tunnels with orifices reformed from diversion tunnel [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1997(2): 1-10 (in Chinese).
[3] Wu J H, Ai W Z. Flows through energy dissipaters with sudden reduction and sudden enlargement forms [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2010, 22(3): 360-365.
[4] Russell S O, Ball J W. Sudden-enlargement energy dissipator for Mica dam [J]. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 1967, 93(4): 41-56.
[5] Ni H G. Estimation of incipient cavitation number of spillway tunnel with orifice [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics,Ser A, 1995, 10(4): 419-429 (in Chinese).
[6] Xu Fu-sheng, Liu Shu-jun. The characteristics of multi-stage orifice plate [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,1988(11): 47-57 (in Chinese).
[7] Ai W Z, Ding T M. Orifice plate cavitation mechanism and its influencing factors [J]. Journal of Water Science and Engineering, 2010, 3(3): 321-330.
[8] Wu J H, Ai W Z, Zhou Q. Head loss coefficient of orifice plate energy dissipaters[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 2010, 48(4): 526-530.
[9] Liu S J, Yang Y Q, Xu W L, et al. Hydraulic characteristics of throat-type energy dissipater in discharge tunnels [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2002(7):42-50 (in Chinese).
[10] Tian Z, Xu W L, Wang W, et al. Hydraulic characteristics of plug energy dissipater in flood discharge tunnel [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser B, 2009,21(6): 799-806.
[11] Zhang J M, Xu W L, Liu S J, et al. Numerical simulation of turbulent flow in throat type energy dissipators [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2004(12):27-39 (in Chinese).
[12] Qu J X, Yang Y Q, Zhang J M, et al. Numerical simulation of cavitation on orifice energy-dissipator [J].Journal of Sichuan University: Engineering Science Edition, 2001, 33(3): 30-36 (in Chinese).
[13] Qu J X, Xu W L, Yang Y Q, et al. Numerical simulation of flow through orifice energy dissipaters in XIAOLANGDI flood discharge tunnel [J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics,Ser B, 2000(3): 41-46.
[14] Xia Q F, Ni H G. Numerical simulation of plug energy dissipater [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2003(8): 37-47 (in Chinese).
