Water Science and Engineering, 2010, 3(3): 341-353

doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370.2010.03.010
http://www.waterjournal.cn
e-mail: wse2008@vip.163.com

Experiments and numerical simulations on transport of

dissolved pollutants around spur dike
Li-ping CHEN*, Jun-cheng JIANG
College of Urban Construction and Safety Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology,
Nanjing 210009, P. R. China

Abstract: The flow field around a spur dike has three-dimensional characteristics. In order to
analyze the influence of the flow field on pollutant transport, based on a compressive volume of
fluid (VOF) scheme, the three-dimensional transient compressive pollutant transport model (CPTM)
and the cubic equation (CE) bounded differencing scheme were developed. For the calibration and
validation of CPTM, laboratory experiments were carried out in a flume with a non-submerged spur
dike. The spur dike was angled at 60ο, 90ο, and 120ο from the upstream direction. The simulation
results agreed with the experimental results. The simulations and experiments showed that the
distribution of pollutant concentration was determined by circumfluence and the main flow.
Concentration decay in the circumfluence zone was slower than that in the main flow. Downstream
of the spur dike, the concentration fluctuation became intensive with the increase of spur dike angle.
Key words: VOF; spur dike; dissolved pollutant; numerical simulation; experiment

1 Introduction
A spur dike may be defined as a structure extending outward from the bank of a stream for
the purpose of deflecting the current away from the bank to protect it from erosion. Flow
separation around a spur dike and circumfluence downstream occur because the streamline is
compressed and velocity increases (Duan et al. 2010; Cui et al. 2008; Hua et al. 2008).
Pollutant transport around the spur dike is highly three-dimensional. There is no doubt that a
three-dimensional hydrodynamic water quality model is needed to simulate pollutant transport
around a spur dike. Mayerle et al. (1995) and Tang et al. (2007) assumed hydrostatic pressure
distribution to simulate flow in the vicinity of a spur dike. The hydrostatic pressure distribution
assumption is not reliable for computation of flow fields around a spur dike because the water
surface curve around a spur dike changes significantly. Wu and Yuan (2007) and Ai and Jin
(2008) developed non-hydrostatic models for free surface flows. In computational fluid
dynamics, the VOF (volume of fluid) method is a numerical technique for tracking and locating
—————————————
This work was supported by the Eleventh Five-year Scientific and Technical Plan (Grant No.
2006BAK01B02-03) and the Course Foundation of Nanjing University of Technology (Grant No.
39714004).
*Corresponding author (e-mail: clpjoy@njut.edu.cn)
Received Jul. 6, 2010; accepted Jul. 25, 2010
the free surface. The method is based on the idea of the so-called fraction function. The
equation of fraction function cannot be directly solved easily, since the fraction function is
discontinuous. Nevertheless, some attempts have been made. The most popular approach to the
equation of fraction function is the so-called geometrical reconstruction, originating in the
works of Hirt and Nichols (1981). Approaches to the geometrical reconstruction have
developed rapidly (Ubbink and Issa 1999; Sussman and Puckett 2000; Francois et al. 2006;
Zou and Zheng 2008; Caboussat et al. 2008; Dolbow et al. 2008; Afkhami et al. 2009; Raessi et
al. 2010; Larmaei and Mahdi 2010). The VOF method was used in the simulation of a spillway
tunnel (Sha et al. 2006). Fu et al. (2006) used the VOF method to calculate the flow field of
Acipenser sinensis’s spawning site downstream of the Gezhouba Dam in China. A
three-dimensional large eddy simulation model of unsteady hydraulic jumps and pressure
fluctuations was established by adopting an improved VOF free-surface tracking method (Qin
et al. 2010).
In the VOF method, the geometrical reconstruction is inefficient. The basic differencing
schemes are not good for interface flow. The reason is that the low-order scheme causes
serious numerical diffusion around the interface and the high-order scheme causes unphysical
oscillations. The normalized variable diagram (NVD) bounded differencing scheme was
introduced by Leonard (1988). Based on NVD, the switch between the second-order upwind
and the central and first-order upwind differencing (SOUCUP) (Zhu and Rodi 1991) and the
combination of a second- and third-order interpolation profile applied in the context of the
normalized variable formulation (STOIC) (Darwish 1993) differencing schemes were
proposed. In these differencing schemes, the switch between the basic schemes causes an
unsteady-state solution. Jasak et al. (1999) modified the normalized variable in terms of
gradients of the dependent variable to propose the Gamma bounded differencing scheme. In
the Gamma scheme, a smooth transition between upwind differencing and central differencing
is realized, but the calculations for gradients of the dependent variable increase the
computational cost.
In this study, the compressive VOF scheme was developed by introducing an artificial
compressive term into the VOF equation. The derivation of the three-dimensional transient
compressive pollutant transport model (CPTM) is based on the compressive VOF scheme. The
difference between the CPTM and the general water quality models is that the CPTM takes
into account the effect of the water-air interface on pollutant transport. Based on the NVD and
the cubic equation (CE), this study developed the CE bounded differencing scheme. Without
reconstructing the interface, the computational efficiency of the compressive VOF with the CE
differencing scheme is very high. For the calibration and validation of the CPTM, laboratory
experiments were carried out in a straight rectangular flume with a non-submerged spur dike.
On the basis of comparison between the simulations and experiments, the flow structure and
pollutant transport features around a non-submerged spur dike were obtained.

342 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
2 Model development
2.1 Continuity equation and momentum equation of computational cell
The VOF method offers ideas that can be used in two-phase flows. The fraction of
volume occupied by water in a computational cell is usually denoted by α . If α = 1 , the
liquid phase, i.e. water, occupies the computational cell. If α = 0 , the gas phase, i.e. air,
occupies the computational cell. If 0 < α < 1 , the computational cell is partially filled and has
an air-water interface. In each computational cell, the volume fractions of all phases sum to
unity. If β = 1 − α , the density ρ and velocity ui of the computational cell are defined as
ρ = α ρα + β ρ β (1)
αρα uα i + βρ β uβ i
ui = (2)
ρ
where ρα and ρ β are the densities of water and air, respectively; uα i and uβ i are the
velocities of water and air, respectively; and the subscript i equals to 1, 2, or 3, representing
the three directions in the Cartesian coordinate system.
The continuity equation of the computational cell is calculated according to the mass
conservation theorem:
∂ (αρα + βρ β ) ∂ (αρα uα i + βρ β uβ i )
+ =0 (3)
∂t ∂xi
Utilizing Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), Eq. (3) reduces to
∂ρ ∂ ( ρ ui )
+ =0 (4)
∂t ∂xi
The momentum equations of the liquid phase and the gas phase in a computational cell are
written as follows:
d (αρα uα i ) ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞ ∂p
= ⎜⎜ αµα α i ⎟⎟ − α + αρα gi (5)
dt ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂xi
d ( βρ β uβ i ) ∂ ⎛ ∂uβ i ⎞ ∂pβ
= ⎜⎜ βµ β ⎟− + βρ β gi (6)
dt ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎟⎠ ∂xi
where µα and µ β are the turbulent dynamic viscosities of water and air, respectively; pα
and pβ are the pressures of water and air, respectively; and gi is the gravity acceleration
component. It is assumed that
pα = α p , pβ = β p (7)
∂ui ∂u ∂uβ i
µ = αµα α i + βµ β (8)
∂x j ∂x j ∂x j
where p is the pressure of the computational cell.
Eq. (5) is added to Eq. (6), and the momentum equation of the computational cell is
formulated as

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 343
 d ( ρ ui ) ∂ ( ρ ui ) ∂ ( ρ u j ui ) ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞ ∂p
= + = ⎜⎜ µ i ⎟⎟ − + ρ gi (9)
dt ∂t ∂x j ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂xi

2.2 Compressive VOF model equations

According to the mass conservation theorem, the differential equations of α in tensor
form can be written as follows:
∂α ∂ ( uα iα )
+ =0 (10)
∂t ∂xi
Utilizing Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), Eq. (10) becomes:
∂α ∂ ( uiα ) ∂ ⎡⎣( uα i − uβ i ) (1 − α ) α ρ β ρ ⎤⎦
+ + =0 (11)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi
In Eq. (11), the third term is named the compressive term. Only the volume with air-water
interface has a compressive term, in which the relative velocity of water to air at the free
surface acts on α . The flux of ( uα i − uβ i ) is treated as bounded flux (Jasak et al. 1999).

2.3 Transport equation of dissolved pollutant

The transport equation for a dissolved pollutant in water is
∂C ∂ (uαi C ) ∂ ⎛ Dm ∂C ⎞
+ = ⎜ ⎟ + SC (12)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ⎜⎝ σ c ∂x ⎟⎠ i
where C is the concentration of the dissolved pollutant, SC is a source term for the
biochemical process, Dm is the turbulent dispersion coefficient, and σ C is the turbulent
Schmidt number relating the turbulent diffusivity of the dissolved pollutant to the eddy
viscosity ν t . A value of σ C = 1 was used in this study.
Utilizing Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), Eq. (12) is written as follows:
∂C ∂ ( ui C ) ∂ ⎣⎡( uα i − uβ i ) (1 − α ) ρ β C ρ ⎦⎤ ∂ ⎛ Dm ∂C ⎞
+ + = ⎜ ⎟ + SC (13)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi ⎝ σ C ∂x ⎠i
Eq. (4), Eq. (9), Eq. (11), and Eq. (13) constitute the system of equations describing dissolved
pollutant transport.
Turbulence is accounted for by adopting the standard k-ε model (Markatos 1986). The
governing equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k and the dissipation rate ε are
∂ ( ρk ) ∂ ∂ ⎛ D ∂k ⎞
+ ( ρ ui k ) = ⎜ m ⎟ + Pk − ρε (14)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ⎝ σ k ∂xi ⎠
∂ ( ρε ) ∂ ∂ ⎛ D ∂ε ⎞ ε ε2
+ ( ρ ui ε ) = ⎜ m ⎟ + Cε 1 Pk − ρ Cε 2 (15)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ⎝ σ ε ∂xi ⎠ k k
⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ ∂ui k2
where Pk = Dm ⎜ i + ⎟⎟ , Dm = µ + µt , and µt = ρ Cµ . Values of empirical
⎜ ε
⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ ∂x j

344 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
coefficients in the standard k-ε model are Cµ =0.09, Cε 1 = 1.44 , Cε 2 = 1.92 , σ k = 1.0 , and
σ ε = 1.3 . The wall-function approach proposed by Launder and Spalding (1990) was used for
turbulent flow in this study.
3 CE differencing scheme
The finite volume method (FVM) of discretization was applied. Free surface flow and
the transport of dissolved pollutants are bounded; that is, the water and air at the free
surface are immiscible and the dissolved pollutant in the water cannot pass through the
water-air interface. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the boundedness of free surface
flow and dissolved pollutant transport. The bounded differencing scheme based on CE was
developed in this study.
For the mesh points in NVD (Fig. 1(a)), the normalized variable φ = (φ − φW ) (φE − φW )
was defined by Leonard (1988). φ denotes physical variable (mass, momentum or
concentration, etc.) at optional location; φW and φE are physical variables at the mesh
points W and E, respectively; and e is the interface of the computational cells. The convection
boundedness criterion (CBC) is
⎧⎪if 0 ≤ φP ≤ 1, 0 ≤ φP ≤ φe ≤ 1
⎨ (16)
⎪⎩if φP < 0 or φP > 1, φe = φP
where φP = (φP − φW ) (φE − φW ) ; φe = (φe − φW ) (φE − φW ) ; φe is physical variable at the
interface e; φ is physical variable at point P; φ and φ are the normalized variables of
P P e

φP and φe , respectively. The normalized variable diagram (Fig. 1(b)) shows that the upwind
differencing (UD) satisfies the convection boundedness criterion completely, and the central
differencing (CD) satisfies the convection boundedness criterion only when 0 ≤ φP ≤ 1 . In Fig. 1(b),
f e is defined as f e = eE PE , eE is the distance from interface e to point E, PE is the
distance from point P to point E, and K is a coefficient.

Fig. 1 Differencing schemes in NVD

CD is used when 0 ≤ φP ≤ 1 to preserve overall second-order accuracy. For cases when
φP < 0 and φP > 1 , UD is used in order to guarantee boundedness. Therefore, some sort of

switching between CD and UD is necessary. This causes the most serious problem: a
steady-state solution is not obtained because of the perturbations introduced by switching. In
order to overcome this difficulty, a new differencing scheme based on CE was developed in this

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 345
study. The smooth transitional function is
φe = aφP3 + bφP2 + cφP + d (17)
where a, b, c, and d are coefficients, which are solved by Eq. (18) when 0 ≤ φP ≤ K :
~ ~
⎧φe = 0 if φP = 0
⎪~ ~
⎪φe = f e K + (1 - f e ) if φ P = K
⎪ ~
⎪ dφ e
⎪ ~ =1 (18)
⎨ dφ P ~
⎪ φ P = 0
⎪ ~
⎪ dφ e = fe
⎪ dφ~
P φ~ = K
⎪⎩ P

Then,
⎧ (1 + fe ) K + 2 fe − 2
⎪a =
⎪ K3
⎪ 3 − 3 fe − 2K − fe K
⎨b = (19)
⎪ K2
⎪c = 1
⎪
⎩d = 0
The CE differencing scheme is φe = aφP2φP + (bφP2 + cφP )φE + ⎡⎣1 − ( a + b ) φP2 − cφP ⎤⎦ φW .
The role of the K coefficient can be seen in Fig. 1(b). The larger the value of K, the more
blending will be introduced. At the same time, the transition between UD and CD will be
smoother. An upper limit on K comes from the accuracy requirement. For good resolution, K
should ideally be kept within the range of 0.1 ≤ K ≤ 0.5 .

4 Numerical simulation and experiment

4.1 Physical model
Simulations and a series of experiments were performed on a non-submerged spur dike in
a laboratory flume. The flume was 0.4 m wide, 0.4 m deep, 14.0 m long, and had a 3 700
bed slope. The mean flow depth was 0.087 m. The spur dike was rectangular, 0.1 m long, 0.1
m high, and 0.015 m wide, and was installed in the middle of the flume. Spur dike models
were angled at 60ο, 90ο, and 120ο upstream in the experiments.
The computational zone was 3.0 m long, 0.4 m wide, and 0.2 m high. The coordinates of
the computational and experimental zones are shown in Fig. 2. The bottom of the flume was at
z = 0. The dumping point was at x = 0.1 m and y = 0.05 m on the free surface. The sampling
cross sections were at x = 1.12 m and x = 1.27 m. The sampling sites at each cross section
were y = 0.01 m, y = 0.09 m, and y = 0.17 m, respectively. The heights of sampling sites were
all z = 0.04 m. A laser doppler velocimeter was used to measure velocity.

346 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
 Fig. 2 Coordinates of computational and experimental zones

4.2 Conditions for simulations

The length and height of the computational zone were set at 3.0 m and 0.2 m, respectively.
Through multiple computations, it was found that the length of the vortex behind the spur dike
increased only 0.2%, while there was a 40% increase in the length of the computational zone.
The increase of the height of the computational zone had no influence on the water surface
curve.
The computational zone was anomalous because of the existence of the spur dike. In the
mesh generation, the computational zone was divided into five blocks as shown in Fig. 3, and
the structure grid was adopted. The numbers of nodes in x, y, and z directions were 120, 27, and
40, respectively.

Fig. 3 Mesh around spur dike

As for boundary conditions, the top and bottom of the computational zone were regarded
as atmospheric pressure and a no-slip boundary, respectively. The inlet boundary was
composed of the water flow inlet and air inlet. The water discharge was 0.003 6 m3/s at the
inlet. The air velocity at the inlet was set at zero. The k and ε at the inlet boundary were
evaluated according to empirical formulas. The gradients of all physical quantities at outlet
cross sections were assumed to be zero.
The relative tolerance limits the relative improvement from initial to final solution. In the
experiments in this study, the relative tolerances for all physical quantities were set at 10–5 to
force the solution to converge.

4.3 Results and analysis

For the physical model, the computer used in this study was the dual-core Intel Pentium 4

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 347
CPU (3.00 GHz). The computational times for one second of flow with the CE differencing
scheme and the Gamma differencing scheme are, respectively, 568 s and 694 s. The
computational efficiency of the CE differencing scheme is higher than for the Gamma
differencing scheme.
The calculated velocity fields at plane z = 0.02 m around spur dikes angled at 60ο (Case 1),
90ο (Case 2) and 120ο (Case 3) are shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that there is a large vortex
behind each spur dike.

Fig. 4 Velocity distribution at plane z = 0.02 m in three cases

A comparison of the vortex lengths behind the spur dike in three cases is shown in Table 1.
In Case 2, the vortex length caused by the spur dike at a 90ο angle is the longest. In Case 3,
water flow around the spur dike with a 120ο angle forms the shortest vortex.
Table 1 Comparison of vortex lengths behind spur dike

Case Angle (°) Calculated data (m) Experimental data (m) Relative error (%)
Case 1 60 1.0 0.95-1.06 -5.0-6.0
Case 2 90 1.3 1.25-1.40 -3.8-7.7
Case 3 120 0.7 0.66-0.76 -5.7-8.6

Note: The relative errors are the ratios of the differences between the experimental and calculated data to the calculated data.

The small relative errors between the calculated and experimental data indicate that the
models proposed in this study are applicable to the flow around spur dikes.
The water level around the spur dike in Case 2 for longitudinal section y = 0.05 m is
shown in Fig. 5. The simulation is in good agreement with the experiment. The water level
around the spur dike changes severely, and the free surface at the tip of the spur dike rises and
then drops sharply.
At the cross section around the spur dike, the water level of the main flow is higher than
that of the back flow. The water surface curve at the cross section x = 1.05 m in Case 2 is
shown in Fig. 6. The water surface opposite of the spur dike is higher than that on the same
side of the spur dike. Similarly, free surfaces around the spur dike in Case 1 and Case 3 have

348 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
the same rule as in Case 2. The drops of the water level along the longitudinal profile y = 0.05 m
and the maximum differences of the water level at the cross section x = 1.05 m in three cases
are compared in Table 2. The changes of the water level in Case 2 are more obvious than in
Case 1 and Case 3.

Fig. 5 Water surface curve along longitudinal Fig. 6 Water surface curve at cross section
profile y = 0.05 m x = 1.05 m

Table 2 Water level comparison

Decrease of water level along longituninal Maximum difference of water level at cross sections/
Case profile/mean flow depth mean flow depth
Experiment (%) Calculation (%) Experiment (%) Calculation (%)
Case 1 14.9 17.2 2.35 2.41
Case 2 16.1 18.4 2.48 2.79
Case 3 13.8 14.9 2.11 2.26

For water flow, there are three reasons for errors between calculations and experiments.
The first one is that water occasionally flows over the brim and above the spur dike in
experiments. However, there is no water above the spur dike in these calculations. The second
one is that the computational zone around the spur dike is anomalous. Thirdly, coarse meshes
in block 1 and block 2 cause errors. Subdivision of meshes around the spur dike can reduce
error but increases computational cost.
Fig. 7 shows the secondary vortical flow at a cross section (x = 1.05 m) in three cases.
The secondary vortical flow in Case 2 is the most significant because the streamline is
severely compressed.

Fig. 7 Secondary vortical flow at cross section x = 1.05 m

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 349
4.4 Results and analysis of dissolved pollutant transport
The dissolved pollutant transport experiments were conducted under the same flow
conditions as the flow velocity measurement experiments. A quantity of 50 mL of dissolved
pollutant (rhodamine B) was instantaneously dumped into the flume with an initial concentration
of C0 = 2 g/L . A spectral photometer was used to measure the pollutant concentration.
Fig. 8 shows the results of the simulation of rhodamine B concentration transport around
the spur dike in Case 1. Case 2 and Case 3 have similar patterns of concentration transport.

Fig. 8 Simulation of rhodamine B concentration transport around spur dike in Case 1

Fig. 8 shows that the front edge of the rhodamine B cloud arrives at the tip of the spur
dike at two seconds and then flows around the spur dike following the main flow. There is a
concentration tail behind the rhodamine B cloud. Two concentration centers arise downstream
of the spur dike and a dead water zone appears at the fourth second. At the same time, the
concentration tail stretches. The concentration center in the dead water zone disappears
quickly because of exchange with the main flow. Between the third and sixth seconds the
shape of the pollutant cloud changes continually. At the sixth second, the pollutant cloud
passes through the spur dike and enters the circumfluence zone. The pollutant remains in the
circumfluence zone for a long time due to the weak exchange with the main flow.
Fig. 9 is the pollutant concentration as a function of time at the cross section x0 L0 = 12 10
in three cases, where x0 is the distance between the sampling transection and the spur dike,
and L0 is the length of the spur dike.
As shown in Fig. 9, the pollutant concentration at y L0 = 17 10 in Case 1 is lower than
in Case 2 and Case 3 in the first ten seconds, because this sampling site is at the edge of the
pollutant cloud. After the concentration center leaves the x0 L0 = 12 10 cross section, the
concentration at y L0 = 17 10 decays sharply in all three cases. The concentration at
y L0 = 1 10 increases slowly and then decreases. In Case 1, the concentration at y L0 = 9 10
decays from the maximum value and then rises significantly because of back flow. According
to the rise of concentration at y L0 = 9 10 in Fig. 9, less pollutant with back flow passes
through y L0 = 9 10 with the increase of the spur dike angle.

350 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
 Fig. 9 Rhodamine B concentration as function of time at cross section x0 L0 = 12 10
During dissolved pollutant transport, the errors between experiments and calculations are
caused by dumping behavior. In calculations, the pollutant has no velocity relative to the water.
However, the pollutant has velocity relative to the water for the sudden dumping in
experiments. A new device for dumping should be designed in future studies to reduce error.
Fig. 10 is the pollutant concentration as a function of time at the cross section
x0 L0 = 27 10 in three cases. After falling from the maximum concentration, as the spur dike
angle increases, the concentration fluctuation at y L0 = 17 10 tends to increase in the
experiments. The reason for concentration fluctuation is that the pollutant carried by the small
corner vortex is discontinuous. The maximum concentration at y L0 = 1 10 in Case 3 is
higher than in other cases. The difference between concentrations at y L0 = 1 10 and at
y L0 = 9 10 increases with the spur dike angle. In Case 1, the maximum concentration is
slightly higher at y L0 = 9 10 than at y L0 = 1 10 . However, in Case 2, the maximum
concentration at y L0 = 9 10 is less than at y L0 = 1 10 . In Case 3, the maximum
concentration at y L0 = 9 10 is much less than at y L0 = 1 10 . Before the pollutant carried
by back flow passes through y L0 = 9 10 , much pollutant carried by back flow enhances the
concentration at y L0 = 1 10 in Case 3.

Fig. 10 Rhodamine B concentration as a function of time at cross section x0 L0 = 27 10

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 351
5 Conclusions
Based on the compressive VOF scheme, the water quality model CPTM was developed.
Without reconstructing the interface, the compressive VOF scheme with the bounded
differencing scheme CE can effectively simulate the free surface and highly three-dimensional
flow around a spur dike. Spur dikes with different angles create different flow patterns. The
vortex length caused by a spur dike with a 90ο angle is the longest. Water flow around the spur
dike with a 120ο angle forms the shortest vortex. The water level shows a steep change around
the spur dike.
The different three-dimensional flow patterns around the spur dike determine the
different transport features of dissolved pollutants. The decay of the pollutant is highest in the
main flow. The rise and decay rates of the concentration in the circumfluence zone are
proportional to the velocity of back flow.
The concentration of fluctuation behind the spur dike becomes intensive with the increase
of the spur dike angle. The reason for concentration fluctuation is that the pollutant carried by the
small corner vortex is discontinuous. It is concluded that the small corner vortex increases with
the spur dike angle.

References
Afkhami, S., Zaleski, S., and Bussmann, M. 2009. A mesh-dependent model for applying dynamic contact
angles to VOF simulations. Journal of Computational Physics, 228(15), 5370-5389. [doi:10.1016/j.jcp.
2009.04.027]
Ai, C. F., and Jin, S. 2008. Three-dimensional non-hydrostatic model for free-surface flows with unstructured
grid. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 20(1), 108-116. [doi:10.1016/S1001-6058(08)60035-9]
Caboussat, A., Francois, M. M., and Glowinski, R. 2008. A numerical method for interface reconstruction of
triple points within a volume tracking algorithm. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 48(11-12),
1957-1971. [doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.009]
Cui, Z. F., Zhang, X. F., and Feng, X. X. 2008. Numerical simulation on scour around spur-dike by 3D
turbulent model. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. A, 23(1), 33-41. (in Chinese)
Darwish, M. S. 1993. A new high-resolution scheme based on the normalize variable formulation. Numerical
Heat Transfer, Part B, 24(3), 353-371. [doi:10.1080/10407799308955898]
Dolbow, J., Mosso, S., Robbins, J. and Voth, T. 2008. Coupling volume-of-fluid based interface
reconstructions with the extended finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 197(5), 439-447. [doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2007.08.010]
Duan, J. G., He, L., Fu, X. D., and Wang, Q. Q. 2010. Mean flow and turbulence around experimental spur
dike. Advances in Water Resources, 32(12), 1717-1725. [doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.09.004]
Francois, M. M., Cummins, S. J., Dendy, E. D., Kothe, D. B., Sicilian, J. M., and Williams, M. W. 2006. A
balanced-force algorithm for continuous and sharp interfacial surface tension models within a volume
tracking framework. Journal of Computational Physics, 213(1), 141-173. [doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.
08.004]
Fu, X. L., Li, D. M., and Chen, Y. B. 2006. Flow field calculation and analysis of Acipenser Sinensis’s
spawning site in Gezhouba downstream. Advances in Water Science, 17(5), 700-704. (in Chinese)
Hirt, C. W., and Nichols, B. D. 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries.
Journal of Computational Physics, 39(1), 201-225. [doi:10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5]
Hua, Z. L., Xing, L. H., and Gu, L. 2008. Application of a modified quick scheme to depthaveraged k-ε

352 Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353
 turbulence model based on unstructured grids. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 20(4), 514-523. [doi:10.
1016/S1001- 6058(08)60088-8]
Jasak, H., Weller, H. G. and Gosman, A. D. 1999. High resolution NVD differencing scheme for arbitrarily
unstructured meshes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 31(2), 431-449.
[doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19990930)31:2<431::AID-FLD884>3.3.CO;2-K]
Larmaei, M. M., and Mahdi, T. 2010. Simulation of shallow water waves using VOF method. Journal of
Hydro-environment Research, 3(4), 208-214. [doi:10.1016/j.jher.2009.10.010]
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B. 1990. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 81(3), 269-289.
Leonard, B. P. 1988. Simple high-accuracy resolution program for convective modeling of discontinuities.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 8(10), 1291-1318. [doi:10.1002/fld.1650081013]
Markatos, N. C. 1986. The mathematical modeling of turbulence flows. Applied Mathematical Modelling,
10(3), 190-220. [doi:10.1016/0307-904X(86)90045-4]
Mayerle, R., Wang, S. S. Y., and Toro, F. M. 1995. Verification of a three-dimensional numerical model
simulation of the flow in the vicinity of spur dikes. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 33(2), 243-256.
[doi:10.1080/ 00221689509498673]
Qin, L., Tian, H. J., and Zhao, H. 2010. Large eddy simulation of flow fluctuating pressure based on an
improved VOF free surface track method. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 29(3), 92-96. (in
Chinese)
Raessi, M., Mostagnimi, J., and Bussmann, M. 2010. A volume-of-fluid interfacial flow solver with advected
normals. Computers and Fluids, 39(8), 1401-1410. [doi:10.1016/j.compfluid. 04.010]
Sha, H. F., Wu, S. Q., and Chen, Z. W. 2006. 3D numerical simulation for spillway tunnel. Advances in Water
Science, 17(4), 507-511. (in Chinese)
Sussman, M., and Puckett, E. G. 2000. A coupled level set and volume-of-fluid method for computing 3D and
axisymmetric incompressible two-phase flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 162(2), 301-337.
[doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6537]
Tang, X. L., Ding, X., and Chen, Z. C. 2007. Experimental and numerical investigations on secondary flows
and sedimentations behind a spur dike. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 19(1), 23-29. [doi:10.1016/
S1001-6058(07)60023-7]
Ubbink, O., and Issa, R. I. 1999. A method for capturing sharp fluid interfaces on arbitrary meshes. Journal of
Computational Physics, 153(1), 26-50. [doi:10.1006/jcph.1999.6276]
Wu, C. H., and Yuan, H. L. 2007. Efficient non-hydrostatic modelling of surface waves interacting with
structures. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(4), 687-699. [doi:10.1016/j.apm.2005.12.002]
Zhu, J., and Rodi, W. 1991. Low dispersion and bounded convection scheme. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 92(1), 87-96. [doi:10.1016/0045-7825(91)90199-G]
Zou, J. F., and Zheng, Y. 2008. Application of bounded and compressed VOF method to interfacial flow.
Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Science), 42(2), 253-258. (in Chinese)

Li-ping CHEN et al. Water Science and Engineering, Sep. 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 341-353 353