processes
Article
Flow Characteristics and Anti‑Vortex in a Pump Station with
Laterally Asymmetric Inflow
Can Luo 1, *, Yufan He 1 , Yinan Shang 2 , Xiao Cong 3 , Chao Ding 4 , Li Cheng 1, * and Shuaihao Lei 1
Citation: Luo, C.; He, Y.; Shang, Y.;
Cong, X.; Ding, C.; Cheng, L.; Lei, S.
Flow Characteristics and Anti‑Vortex
in a Pump Station with Laterally
Asymmetric Inflow. Processes 2022,
10, 2398. https://doi.org/10.3390/
pr10112398
Academic Editor: Haiping Zhu
Received: 17 October 2022
Accepted: 11 November 2022
Published: 14 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil‑
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Processes 2022, 10, 2398. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112398
1 College of Hydraulic Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
2 Jiujiang Hydraulic Waterpower Planning and Designing Research Institution, Jiujiang 332001, China
3 Jiangsu Nantong Sanjian Construction Group Co., Ltd., Nantong 226100, China
4 Jiangsu Hongyuan Bidding Acting Co., Ltd., Nanjing 210024, China
* Correspondence: luocan@yzu.edu.cn (C.L.); chengli@yzu.edu.cn (L.C.)
Abstract: In a laterally asymmetric intake pumping station, the flow direction in the forebay is not
consistent with flow in the intake channel. Thus, the adverse flow patterns, such as bias flow, large‑
scale vortex and asymmetric flow occur frequently in the forebay and sump. Based on the Reynolds‑
averaged Navier‑Stokes (RANS) equation and the RNG k‑ε turbulence model, a recent flow pattern
in a laterally asymmetric intake pumping station was numerically simulated and analyzed, and ef‑
fective vortex elimination measures were proposed. For the original scheme, seriously biased flow
combined with large‑scale vortices were observed in the forebay and several vortices occurred in the
sump. To suppress the clash inflow in the south and north intake channel, the “straight diversion
pier + curved wing wall” and “straight diversion pier + curved wing wall + V‑shaped diversion pier”
were installed separately. The” symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion pier” and “symmetrical 川‑shaped
diversion pier + circular column” was utilized to eliminate the bias flow and large‑scale vortices in
the forebay. Finally, the “three‑ sectional diversion pier”, “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle
column” and “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle column + straight back baffle” was applied to
decrease the vortex and asymmetric flow near the suction pipe of the sump. By attaching the rectifi‑
cation measure schemes in the intake channel and the forebay, the bias flow and large‑scale vortex
in the forebay were suppressed to varying degrees. The schemes significantly reduced the recircu‑
lation coefficient and greatly reduced the recirculation volume. By utilizing the vortex elimination
measures in the sump, the vortex and asymmetric flow basically disappeared, the velocity distribu‑
tion tended to become more uniform, and the flow rate distinction of each pump was smaller. The
outcome can be used to provide a reference and basis for the improvement of flow pattern in similar
laterally asymmetric intake pump stations.
Keywords: laterally asymmetric intake pumping station; vortex elimination; combined rectification;
symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion pier; recirculation coefficient
1. Introduction
According to the consistency of the flow direction between the intake channel and the
forebay, the pumping stations are divided into front and lateral intake types. Due to the
adverse flow pattern in the lateral intake pump, as shown in Figure 1b, the front intake
type is privileged. However, recirculation may also appear in the front intake pumping
station if design parameters such as the diffusion angle, are not reasonable, as shown in
Figure 1a. The lateral intake forebay is also an absolutely essential option, owing to the
limitations of the engineering layout. However, the lateral intake brings the recirculation,
asymmetric flow and even vortices in the forebay due to the unsatisfactory inflow for the
pump suction. Focused on the adverse flow pattern in the lateral intake forebay and sump,
previous researchers have carried out a significant amount of research. Nasr, A. [1] com‑
pared and analyzed numerical simulations of the forebay in the lateral intake pumping
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes
 station forebay with, and without, rectification measures by using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) for multiple unit operations. Song, W. [2] used the method of numerical
simulation and model testing to study the “Y” type diversion pier and “T” type diversion
pier with the lateral intake pumping station as an example. Zhao, H. [3] used the measure
Processes 2022, 10, 2398
of combining a guide−wall with a vertical column to improve the undesirable flow pattern2 of 24
of the water intake structure. Zhang, C [4] and Zhou, J. [5] used orthogonal experiments
and computational fluid dynamics methods to analyze the flow characteristics of diver-
station forebay with, and without, rectification measures by using computational fluid dy‑
sion piers with different
namicscombinations
(CFD) for multiple of parameters.
unit operations. Xi,Song,
W. [6] W.used an N−S
[2] used equation
the method and
of numerical
transport equationsimulation
of turbulent and dynamic
model testingpower for the
to study the“Y”
formation mechanism
type diversion pier and of “T”the asym-
type diversion
pier with the lateral intake pumping station as
metric adherent vortex in the side pump sump. Yang, F. [7] analyzed the flow field of an example. Zhao, H. [3] used theamea‑
sure of combining a guide‑wall with a vertical column to improve the undesirable flow
lateral intake pumping station and proposed a rectification scheme of a rectifier sill and
pattern of the water intake structure. Zhang, C [4] and Zhou, J. [5] used orthogonal exper‑
diversion wall with openings.
iments Luo, C. [8,9]
and computational fluid simulated a multi−unit
dynamics methods lateral
to analyze inletcharacteristics
the flow pumping of
station using a CFD by modeling
diversion piers with triangular columns and
different combinations partition piers
of parameters. Xi, W.to [6]optimize
used an N‑S theequa‑
flow pattern. Choi,tion
J. [10]
andused a combination
transport of CFDdynamic
equation of turbulent and model power experiments
for the formationto study the of
mechanism
vortices in the sump of a pumping station and its vortex elimination measures. Zhang, Y.flow
the asymmetric adherent vortex in the side pump sump. Yang, F. [7] analyzed the
field of a lateral intake pumping station and proposed a rectification scheme of a rectifier
[11], Zhou, J. [12] and Kadam, P. [13] used a combination of numerical simulation methods
sill and diversion wall with openings. Luo, C. [8,9] simulated a multi‑unit lateral inlet
and physical models to research
pumping stationthe
usingpoor
a CFDflow by patterns
modeling in forebaycolumns
triangular of the andpumping
partition station.
piers to op‑
Xia, C. [14] used square columns to conduct rectification research on the
timize the flow pattern. Choi, J. [10] used a combination of CFD and model experiments forebay of the
to study
pumping station. Chen, L.the
[15]vortices in the the
simulated sump of a pumping
steady flows in station and itsrectangular
a typical vortex elimination
sumpmea‑
sures. Zhang, Y. [11], Zhou, J. [12] and Kadam, P. [13] used a combination of numerical
based on the renormalization group analysis model and the SIMPLEC algorithm. Con-
simulation methods and physical models to research the poor flow patterns in forebay of
stantinescu, G. [16]theused the standard
pumping station. Xia, k–ε equation
C. [14] to numerically
used square simulate
columns to conduct the vortex
rectification in on
research
forebay of a pumping station,
the forebay and
of the the simulated
pumping station. Chen, vortex
L. [15]structure
simulatedinthe the poolflows
steady wasincon-a typical
sistent with the results obtained from the model test. Xu, C. [17] simulated the flow pat-
rectangular sump based on the renormalization group analysis model and the SIMPLEC
terns of the forebayalgorithm.
based onConstantinescu,
FLUENT andG.proposed [16] used the twostandard
types k–ε equation to numerically
of rectification measuressimu‑
late the vortex in forebay of a pumping station, and the simulated vortex structure in the
of diversion piers and pressure plates to improve the flow patterns. Ying, J. [18] proposed
pool was consistent with the results obtained from the model test. Xu, C. [17] simulated
a combined rectification
the flowscheme
patterns ofwith different
the forebay based spacing
on FLUENT of columns
and proposedand two bottom
types ofstills for
rectification
the poor flow patterns
measuresin the forebaypiers
of diversion of aandlarge pumping
pressure plates to station.
improveWu, X. [19]
the flow improved
patterns. Ying, J. [18]
proposed a combined rectification scheme with
the flow patterns in the sump by adding flow rectification measures such as diversion different spacing of columns and bottom
stills for the poor flow patterns in the forebay of a large pumping station. Wu, X. [19]
piers and columns. Zi, D. [20] used numerical calculations and field experiments to study
improved the flow patterns in the sump by adding flow rectification measures such as di‑
the effectiveness ofversion
combined diversion
piers and columns. piers
Zi, D. in[20]
improving the flow
used numerical patterns
calculations andinfield
the experiments
intake
structure of large pumping stations. Yu, Y. [21] conducted a numerical
to study the effectiveness of combined diversion piers in improving the flow patterns simulation and in
flow analysis on the the inflow
intake structure
patterns of large
of the pumping
diversion stations.
andYu, intake conductedstations
Y. [21]pumping a numerical withsimula‑
tion and flow analysis on the inflow patterns of
side−inlets based on the realizable k−ε turbulent model and SIMPLEC algorithm, and the diversion and intake pumping stations
with side‑inlets based on the realizable k‑ε turbulent model and SIMPLEC algorithm, and
found that the diversion grid had a significant effect on the regulation of the momentum
found that the diversion grid had a significant effect on the regulation of the momentum
distribution at the distribution
diversion section of the section
at the diversion pumping of thestation.
pumping station.

(a) Front intake type (b) Lateral intake type

Figure 1. Flow pattern in the
Figure 1. forebay andinsump
Flow pattern of front
the forebay andand lateral
sump intake
of front pumping
and lateral intakestation (refstation (ref
pumping
arrows mean the flow direction).
arrows mean the flow direction).
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 3 of 24

In summary, many previous studies on flow patterns in lateral intake pumping sta-
tionsIn have been carried
summary, many out. However,
previous studies research
on flow concerning
patterns inpump lateralstations
intake withpumpinglaterally
sta‑
asymmetric inflow are rarely reported. Recently, CFD method
tions have been carried out. However, research concerning pump stations with laterally has grown into a mature
technology, inflow
asymmetric and is are
as important as experimental
rarely reported. Recently, CFD and the theoretical
method analyses.
has grown into aCFD has
mature
been used inand
technology, theishydraulic
as importantmachinery in pumping
as experimental andstations [22–27].analyses.
the theoretical Therefore, CFD this
hasmanu-
been
scriptinadopted
used a CFD machinery
the hydraulic method to in analyze
pumping the stations
recent flow pattern
[22–27]. in a pump
Therefore, thisstation with
manuscript
laterally aasymmetric
adopted CFD method inflow and proposed
to analyze the recentthe anti−vortex
flow pattern inmeasures and rectification
a pump station with later‑
measures
ally such asinflow
asymmetric a V−shaped diversion
and proposed thepier and 川−shaped
anti‑vortex measures diversion pier. Moreover,
and rectification measuresthe
recirculation
such coefficient
as a V‑shaped proposed
diversion pier byandZi,川‑shaped
D. [28] was conducted
diversion pier.toMoreover,
quantitatively analyze
the recircula‑
tion coefficient
the range proposedrecirculation
of large−scale by Zi, D. [28] wasand
zone conducted
vortices.toThe quantitatively analyzeon
outflow discharge the
therange
out-
of
let large‑scale
of the suction recirculation
pipe was also zonediscussed.
and vortices. The outflow
The research discharge
not only weakenedon the but outlet
solvedof the
suction
turbulent pipe was
flow inalso discussed.
the forebay andThe theresearch
sump, and not provides
only weakened but solved
an important the turbulent
reference for the
flow in the forebay
improvement of flow and the sump,
pattern of other andsimilar
provides an important
pumping stations.reference for the improve‑
ment of flow pattern of other similar pumping stations.
2. Numerical Simulation
2. Numerical Simulation
2.1. Computational Domains
2.1. Computational Domains
The computational domain of a pump station with laterally asymmetric inflow was
The computational domain of a pump station with laterally asymmetric inflow was es‑
established by commercial interactive CAD/CAM software−Unigraphics NX 12.0, devel-
tablished by commercial interactive CAD/CAM software‑Unigraphics NX 12.0, developed
oped by Siemens A&D Groups (Berlin & Munich, German) [29]. The subdomains are the
by Siemens A&D Groups (Berlin & Munich, German) [29]. The subdomains are the north
north intake channel (in green color), the south intake channel (in dark orange color), fore-
intake channel (in green color), the south intake channel (in dark orange color), forebay
bay (in purple color), sump (in gray color), and suction pipes (in gray color), as shown in
(in purple color), sump (in gray color), and suction pipes (in gray color), as shown in Fig‑
Figure 2. The length of the south water channel is 16 D in the north−south direction and 6
ure 2. The length of the south water channel is 16 D in the north‑south direction and 6 D
D in the east−west direction. The length of the north water channel is the same as the south
in the east‑west direction. The length of the north water channel is the same as the south
water channel in
water channel in the
the north−south direction, but
north‑south direction, but 44 DD in
in the
the east−west direction. The
east‑west direction. The length
length
of the forebay is 23.25 D in the north−south direction and 18.25 D
of the forebay is 23.25 D in the north‑south direction and 18.25 D in the east‑west direction. in the east−west direc-
tion. The length and width of the sump is 9.8 D and 3.4 D.
The length and width of the sump is 9.8 D and 3.4 D. Sudden starting of the pump will Sudden starting of the pump
will result
result into into
rapid rapid
waterwater
levellevel
dropdrop in front
in front of theof the
pump pump bellbell mouth.
mouth. If the
If the water
water level
level is
is too shallow, the probability of surface vortex in the sump
too shallow, the probability of surface vortex in the sump increases exponentially. Avoid‑ increases exponentially.
Avoiding
ing such conditions
such conditions should should be considered
be considered in whichinthe which the reasonable
reasonable design of design
the sump of is
the a
sump is a vital method. To avoid the surface vortex and other
vital method. To avoid the surface vortex and other kinds of vortices, the Mandatory Na‑ kinds of vortices, the Man-
datoryStandard
tional Nationalfor Standard
pumping forstation
pumping designstation
[30] design [30] is formulated
is formulated for the designer for the designer
of pumping
of pumping
stations stations
in China. Inin China.
the In thethe
standard, standard, the floorand
floor clearance clearance and submergence
submergence depth of the depth
bell
of the bell
mouth mouth
in the sump in the
are sump
advised areasadvised
(0.6–0.8) asD(0.6−0.8) D and (1.0−1.25)
and (1.0–1.25) D. The submergence
D. The submergence depth of
depth
the bellofmouth
the bell wasmouth
chosenwasaschosen as 0.8 the
0.8 D under D under
waterthe water The
surface. surface. The from
distance distancethe from
back
the back wall to the bell mouth was 1.5 D. Other parameter
wall to the bell mouth was 1.5 D. Other parameter dimensions of the sump in this project dimensions of the sump in
this project were in accord with the standard, in which D is the diameter
were in accord with the standard, in which D is the diameter of the bell mouth inlet of the of the bell mouth
inlet of the
suction pipes.suction pipes.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Computational
Computational domain.
domain.
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 4 of 24

2.2. Governing Equations

The laws of mass conservation, momentum conservation and energy conservation are
the basic principles which the flow should follow. Considering no heat exchange in the en‑
ergy conversion process of the forebay and the sump in the pumping station, the governing
equations adopted in this study are the continuity equation and momentum equation. Due
to the incompressible fluid, the continuity equation can be described as below:

∂ui
=0 (1)
∂xj

The momentum equation is also called the N‑S equation, it can be presented as:

∂ ∂
∂ρ ∂τ
(ρui ) + ρui uj = − + + ρgi + Fi (2)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj

where ui is the three‑dimensional velocity component of the fluid, xi is the three‑dimensional

coordinate component, ρ is the pressure, τ is the stress tensor, ρgi is the gravity term, and
Fi is the external source term. The stress tensor is as:
  
∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂u
τ = µij + − µ i (3)
∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xi

where µij is the dynamic viscosity and δij is the Kronecker delta (when i = j, δij = 1; when
i̸= j, δij = 0).

2.3. Boundary Condition

The inlet of the intake channel was set as mass flow, which is the entrance of the
computational domain, in which the discharge of the north and south intake channel is
3600 kg/s and 1770 kg/s. The exit of the suction pipe set as the static pressure is the outlet
of the computational domain, and the reference pressure is 1 atm. The steady solutions
are obtained by utilizing the finite volume method and mainly discussed in this research.
The water surface is symmetry. The other surfaces, which are treated with scalable wall
function, are no slip walls. Due to the subdomains contained in the computational domain,
the interfaces between the intake channel and the forebay, the forebay and the sump, the
sump and the suction pipe were set as the static interfaces. Reynolds number is a dimen‑
sionless number that can distinguish laminar flow from turbulent flow. In this simulation,
the Reynolds number is much larger than 2300, thus the flow is fully developed turbu‑
lence. The turbulent model selection is greatly important. The RNG k‑ε turbulence model
uses the statistical technique of the renormalization group to correct the turbulent viscosity.
This correction takes into account the swirling effect in the flow, which can better deal with
the problem of large curvature flow. Therefore, considering the recirculation and vortex in
the forebay and sump of the pumping station, the RNG k‑ε turbulence model was utilized
in this simulation and the convergence accuracy is 10−4 . The SIMPLE algorithm and the
second‑order upwind scheme were used to simulate the flow pattern in the pump station.

2.4. Mesh Preparation and Independence Analysis

For the discretization of the computational domain, the quality and quantity of the
mesh is critical. Therefore, a reasonable mesh generation strategy is very important for
numerical simulations. Commonly, there are two types of mesh: structured and unstruc‑
tured. Considering that the geometric characteristics and complexity of each subdomain
were inconsistent, different mesh generation strategies were applied. The south intake
channel, the north intake channel, the forebay and the sump adopted structured meshes.
However, the suction pipes were considered as unstructured meshes because of their com‑
plex geometric profile. The mesh generation of each subdomain is listed in Figure 3. In
 Processes2022,
Processes 2022,10,
10,2398
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 24
23

Figure
core is3e,f, theIn
0.1 m. mesh around
Figure thesize
3f, the diversion piers is encrypted,
of the densified and to
grids closed thethe
size of the mesh
triangle coreis
column
is0.08
0.1 m.
m. In Figure 3f, the size of the densified grids closed to the triangle column is 0.08 m.

(a) South intake channel (b) North intake channel

(c) Forebay (d) Sump and suction pipes

(e) Symmetrical 川 (f) Three−sectional diversion

−shaped diversion pier pier and triangle column
Figure 3. Mesh Preparation.
Figure 3. Mesh Preparation.

In general,
In general, more
more meshes
meshes areare pursued
pursued to tosatisfy
satisfythe
theaccuracy
accuracyrequirements
requirementsofofcalcula-
calcu‑
tion results. Nevertheless, the inappropriate mesh quantity also wastes
lation results. Nevertheless, the inappropriate mesh quantity also wastes computationalcomputational re-
source and operation effectiveness. Thus, the determination of the mesh
resource and operation effectiveness. Thus, the determination of the mesh quantity shouldquantity should
take into
take into account
account both
both the
the stability
stability of
of the
the calculation
calculation results
results and
and the
the minimization
minimization of of the
the
computational resources. Seven kinds of mesh quantities were generated:
computational resources. Seven kinds of mesh quantities were generated: 0.48 million, 0.48 million, 0.8
million,
0.8 1.021.02
million, million, 1.2 1.2
million, million, 1.861.86
million, million, 2.162.16
million, million, 2.862.86
million, million. TheThe
million. hydraulic loss
hydraulic
h was
loss selected
h was to analyze
selected the the
to analyze gridgrid
sensitivity [31].[31].
sensitivity It can be presented
It can as: as:
be presented
𝑃 −𝑃
ℎ= Pin − Pout (4)
ρg𝜌𝑔
h= (4)

where Pin and Pout is the total pressure on the inlet and the outlet of the pump station, Pa; ρ
where Pindensity,
is water and Pout1 is the
× 10 total 3pressure
3 kg/m on the inlet
; g is gravitational and the outlet
acceleration, of the
9.8 m/s 2. pump station, Pa;
ρ is water density, 1 × 10 3 kg/m3 ; g is gravitational acceleration, 9.8 m/s2 .
Figure 4 shows the trend of hydraulic loss for each scheme. The hydraulic loss de-
Figure 4 shows the trend of hydraulic loss for each scheme. The hydraulic loss de‑
creases with the increasing mesh quantity. When the quantity was less than 1.2 million,
creases with the increasing mesh quantity. When the quantity was less than 1.2 million,
the decreasing magnitude of the hydraulic loss was very obvious. With the further in-
the decreasing magnitude of the hydraulic loss was very obvious. With the further in‑
crease of meshes, the hydraulic loss difference of each scheme did not exceed 2%, which
crease of meshes, the hydraulic loss difference of each scheme did not exceed 2%, which
indicates that the mesh quantity can satisfy the computational accuracy. Comprehensively
considered, 1.2 million meshes was adopted to finish the following calculation.
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 6 of 24

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

indicates that the mesh quantity can satisfy the computational accuracy. Comprehensively
considered, 1.2 million meshes was adopted to finish the following calculation.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23

Figure
Figure4. Hydraulic loss trend
4. Hydraulic chart.
loss chart.
trend chart.
Figure 4. Hydraulic loss trend

3. Analysis Sections and Parameters

3. Analysis Sections and Parameters
3.1. Analysis Sections
3.1.To
Analysis
obtain andSections
analyze the internal flow characteristics in the forebay and the sump,
five sections
five sections are sliced.
andAs
are sliced.
To obtain shown in
analyze theFigure 5, theflow
internal horizontal sections are sliced
characteristics in theasforebay
section and th
1, section 2 and section 3 respectively, which are used to analyze the flow
1, section 2 and section 3 respectively, which are used to analyze the flow patterns nearpatterns near the
five
bottom,
sections
the the
are
middle
sliced.
andand
As
thethe
shown
surface.
in
Moreover,
Figure
thethe
5, the
vertical
horizontal
sections
sections are sliced a
the bottom, middle surface. Moreover, vertical sectionsL1L1and
andLL22 are
are sliced
1, section
and marked as 2 and section
sections 4 and 35, respectively,
observing the flowwhich are at
patterns
patterns used to analyze
the inlet the and
of the sump flow patte
the bottom,
before
before the thepipe.
the suction
suction middle
pipe. The and
The heights
heightstheof
ofsurface.
sections Moreover,
1–3 are
section 1−3 are 0.2 D,the
0.2 D, 1.5vertical
1.5 D and
D 2.5sections
and 2.5 above L
D above
D 1 and L2 a
the
the
bottom. The
and marked
bottom. location of sections
as sections
The location 4
4 and
of sections and 5 are 0 D
5, 0observing
4−5 are and 8
D and 8 D away D away
the flow from the
from patterns inlet
the inlet ofat of the
thethe sump.
inlet of the su
sump.
before the suction pipe. The heights of section 1−3 are 0.2 D, 1.5 D and 2.5 D a
bottom. The location of sections 4−5 are 0 D and 8 D away from the inlet of the su

Figure 5. Analysis sections.

Figure 5. Analysis sections.

3.2. Analysis Parameters

The flow characteristics contain the velocity uniform feature and the vortex distribu- distribu‑
performance. The axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle
tion performance.
were
were utilized
utilized
Figure to quantitatively
to quantitatively
5. Analysis analyze the
sections.analyze the velocity
velocity uniform
uniform feature
feature of the vertical sections
44 and
and55ininthe sump.
the sump.Then
Thenthethe
recirculation coefficient
recirculation waswas
coefficient proposed to quantitatively
proposed eval‑
to quantitatively
uate the vortex
evaluate dimension
the vortex in the in
dimension forebay. More than
the forebay. Morethat,
thanthethat,
Q Criterion was also was
the Q Criterion adopted
also
to3.2. Analysis
observe
adopted tothe
Parameters
vortex
observe in vortex
the the forebay.
in the forebay.
Thevelocity
(a) Axial flow characteristics contain
uniformity and axial theweighted
velocity velocityaverage
uniform feature
angle [32]. and the vortex
tionThe
performance.
axial velocity The axial velocity
uniformity Vau reflectsuniformity
the uniformityand of axial velocity
the axial velocityweighted
distribu- avera
were
tion on utilized to quantitatively
the overflowing section. Whenanalyze
the axial the velocity
velocity is more uniform
even, its feature of thetovertical
value is closer
1.4Furthermore, the axial velocity weighted average angle θ is the
and 5 in the sump. Then the recirculation coefficient was proposed
a angle between the flowto quan
 Processes
Processes 2022,2022,
10,10, 2398 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 7 of 24

(a) Axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle [32].
direction and
The axial the overflowing
velocity uniformity V ausection. When
reflects the it flows
uniformity more
of the axialsmoothly, its value is
velocity distribu‑
90°.on the overflowing section. When the axial velocity is more even, its value is closer to
tion
1. Furthermore, the axial velocity weighted average angle θ a is the angle between the flow
direction and the overflowing section. When it∑flows (𝑣more − 1) its value is closer
⁄𝑣 smoothly,
◦ 𝑉 = 1 − 100%
to 90 .  q 𝑛

2
∑in=1 (vai /va − 1)
Vau = 1 −  100% 𝑣
∑n (90° − × arctan )𝑣 (5)
𝑣
𝜃h=  i
∑
90◦ − arctan vvaiti vai
𝑣
∑in=1
θ = (6)
where va is the averageaaxial velocity ∑in=in
1 vaim/s; n is the mesh node number; vai is
velocity
where va isof
theeach mesh
average node
axial in m/s;
velocity vti is
in m/s; the
n is thetransversal velocityvaiofiseach
mesh node number; mesh nod
the axial
As
velocity of shown
each meshin node
Figure 6, vxivtiand
in m/s; vzitransversal
is the is the velocity ofof
velocity each
eachmesh
mesh node
node ininm/s.
X and Z d
As shown in Figure 6, v and v is the velocity of each mesh node in X and
The transversal velocity vti is the square root of the square sum of vxi and vzi. vi i
xi zi Z direction.
The transversal velocity vti is the square root of the square sum of vxi and vzi . vi is the
locity of each mesh node.
velocity of each mesh node.

Figure
Figure 6. 6. Velocity
Velocity triangle
triangle on overflowing
on overflowing section. section.

(b) Recirculation coefficient

(b) Recirculation coefficient
In order to study the influence of the vortex on the flow pattern in the forebay, the
In order to study the influence of the vortex on the flow pattern in the fore
recirculation coefficient Ch is proposed, which characterizes the range of the recirculation
recirculation
zone and vortex. coefficient Ch iscoefficient
The recirculation proposed, Ch is which characterizes
the product the range
of the recirculation of the recir
volume
zone
ratio andand
thevortex. The velocity
recirculation recirculation coefficient
ratio. The recirculation Chvolume
is the product oftothe
ratio equals therecirculation
value
of recirculation volume divided by the volume. The recirculation velocity
ratio and the recirculation velocity ratio. The recirculation volume ratio equals ratio equals to to t
the value of average recirculation velocity divided by the average mainstream velocity.
of recirculation volume divided by the volume. The recirculation velocity ratio e
The equation of the recirculation coefficient Ch can be conducted as:
the value of average recirculation velocity  n 
divided by the average mainstream
The equation of the recirculation coefficient  ∑ v  C can be conducted as:
Q  n  h
i =1 i

Ch = 1 m v (7)
Q 2 ∑ j =1 j ∑ 𝑣
m
𝑄 𝑛
where Q1 is the recirculation volume of each 𝐶 = element in the forebay and sump in
mesh 𝑄 ∑ 𝑣
m ; Q2 is the volume of the forebay and sump in m3 ; vi is the velocity of each mesh ele‑
3
𝑚
ment of the recirculation zone in m/s; vj is the mainstream velocity of each mesh element
 n  ∑m v
where Q1 is the recirculation  ∑i=forebay
1 vi 
zone in m/s. Qvolume of each mesh element in the j=1 and sum
j
of the recirculation 1 /Q2 is the recirculation volume ratio.  n / m
Q2 is the volume of the forebay and sump in m3; vi is the velocity of each mesh ele
the recirculation zone in m/s; vj is the mainstream velocity of each mesh eleme
∑ ∑
recirculation zone in m/s. Q1/Q2 is the recirculation volume ratio. / i
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 8 of 24

is the recirculation velocity ratio. The value range of the recirculation coefficient is 0–1.
For the ideal flow condition, there is no recirculation zone in the forebay and sump, and
the value is 0. The flow pattern tends to more uniform as the decreasing recirculation co‑
efficient. Therefore, the recirculation coefficient can capture the vortex and recirculation
feature correctly.
(c) Q Criterion
The Q Criterion is based on the characteristic equation of the velocity gradient tensor.
Hunt, J. [33] proposed to identify the region where the second matrix invariant Q is greater
than zero as a vortex. The Q Criterion is:

1 
Q= ∥ A∥2F − ∥S∥2F (8)
2
where S is the symmetric part of the velocity gradient tensor, and A is the antisymmet‑
ric part, respectively corresponding to the deformation and rotation in the flow pattern.
Thus, the Q Criterion represents the physical significance of the vorticity over that of the
deformation that dominates the rotating part of the flow pattern.

4. Anti‑Vortex and Rectification Schemes

Combined anti‑vortex schemes in the forebay listed in Table 1 were proposed to im‑
prove the flow pattern and weaken the large‑scale recirculation zone in the forebay. For
the “straight diversion pier + curved wing wall” scheme, it is marked as scheme 1, straight
diversion piers of 5 D and 7 D length were installed in the south and north intake channels,
respectively, the straight wing wall before the sump was replaced with a curved wing wall
with a radius of 1.5 D. For the “straight diversion pier + curved wing wall + V‑shaped di‑
version pier” scheme marked as scheme 2, the V‑shaped diversion pier of 2 D length and
0.2 D width was put forward on the inlet of the forebay. The angle of the V‑shaped diver‑
sion piers was 60◦ to avoid the clash inflow. For the “symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion
pier” scheme marked as scheme 3, the symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion pier was set in the
forebay for a smoother flow and to guide the flow into the sump. For the “symmetrical
川‑shaped diversion pier + circular column” scheme marked as scheme 4, two groups of
circular columns were set near the symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion pier and before the
inlet of the sump to eliminate the vortex and improve the axial velocity uniformity. In
Table 1, new additional anti‑vortex measures for each scheme are distinguished with an
orange color.
To solve the vortices in the sump and asymmetrical inflow before the suction pipes,
some combined rectification schemes of “three‑ sectional diversion pier”, “three‑ sectional
diversion pier + triangle column” and “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle column
+ straight baffle plate” were proposed to be installed in the sump, as shown in Table 2.
For the “three‑sectional diversion pier”, it is marked as scheme 52, straight three‑sectional
diversion piers with a height of 4 D were installed in sump 1#–3# and “J”‑shaped three‑
sectional diversion pier in sump 4 was installed in sump 4#. The distance between each
diversion pier was 0.2 D. For the “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle column” scheme
marked as scheme 6 in Table 2, two groups of triangle columns with a length of 0.2 D were
arranged in sump 4#. For the same group of triangle column, the distance between the
neighbouring triangle column was 0.25 D. However, the distance between different groups
of triangle columns was 1.5 D. For the “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle column +
straight back baffle” scheme marked as scheme 7 in Table 2, the straight back baffle was
applied at the back wall of the sump to eliminate the tiny vortex and the asymmetrical back
flow. Its length, width and height were 1.5 D, 0.4 D and 2.8 D, respectively. In Table 2, the
rectification measures for each scheme are distinguished with a red color.
      
     
      
  Scheme  Anti‐Vortex Measure 
  Dimension 
  2022, 10, 2398
Processes   9 of 24
  Scheme  Anti‐Vortex Measure   
Dimension 
   
  Scheme  Anti‐Vortex Measure   
Dimension 
  Scheme  Anti‐Vortex Measure 
Table 1. Anti‑vortex measures in the forebay.  
Dimension 
Scheme  Anti‐Vortex Measure   
Dimension 
Scheme —  Anti‑Vortex Measure
Original Scheme  Dimension
 
—  Original Scheme 
—  Original Scheme 
—  Original Scheme   
 
— —  Original Scheme 
Original Scheme  
 
 
 
 
  
 
Straight diversion    
1  piers and curved 
Straight diversion   
1  wing wall 
piers and curved 
Straight diversion 
1  wing wall 
piers and curved 
Straight diversion 
1 1 Straight diversion piers and curved
wing wall 
piers and curved 
Straight diversion   
wing wall
wing wall     
1  piers and curved 
wing wall     
 
 
  
 
V‐shaped diversion    
2 
pier 
V‐shaped diversion   
2 
pier 
V‐shaped diversion 
2 2  V‑shaped diversion pier
pier 
V‐shaped diversion 
2   
pier 
V‐shaped diversion   
2   
pier     
 
 
  
 
symmetrical  川‐   
3 
shaped diversion pier 
symmetrical 
symmetrical 川‐
川‑shaped diversion  
3 3 
symmetrical  川‐
pier
shaped diversion pier 
3 
shaped diversion pier 
symmetrical  川‐
3   
shaped diversion pier 
symmetrical  川‐    
3   
shaped diversion pier   
 
 
  
 
4  Circular Column    
4 Circular Column
 
4  Circular Column 
4  Circular Column 
4  Circular Column   
   
4  Circular Column 
   
 
 
 
 
   
Processes 2022, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx  www.mdpi.com/journal/processes 
 
Processes 2022, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx  www.mdpi.com/journal/processes 
 
Processes 2022, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx  www.mdpi.com/journal/processes 
 
Processes 2022, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx  www.mdpi.com/journal/processes 
 
Processes 2022, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx  www.mdpi.com/journal/processes 
 a red color. 
diversion  pier  was  0.2  D.  For  the  “three‐  sectional  diversion  pier  +  triangle  colum
different groups of triangle columns was 1.5 D. For the “three‐ sectional diversion pier + 
scheme marked as scheme 6 in Table 2, two groups of triangle columns with a length
triangle column + straight back baffle” scheme marked as scheme 7 in Table 2, the straight 
0.2  D  were  arranged  in  sump  4#.  For  the  same  group  of  triangle  column, the  distan
back baffle was applied at the back wall of the sump to eliminate the tiny vortex and the 
between the neighbouring triangle column was 0.25 D. However, the distance betwe
asymmetrical  back  flow.  Its  length,  width  and  height  were  1.5  D,  0.4  D  and  2.8  D, 
 
different groups of triangle columns was 1.5 D. For the “three‐ sectional diversion pie
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
respectively. In Table 2, the rectification measures for each scheme are distinguished with 
 
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 10 of 24
triangle column + straight back baffle” scheme marked as scheme 7 in Table 2, the straig
a red color.   
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
back baffle was applied at the back wall of the sump to eliminate the tiny vortex and t
 
asymmetrical  back  flow.  Its  length,  width  and  height  were  1.5  D,  0.4  D  and  2.8 
Table 2. Rectification measures in the sump.  
respectively. In Table 2, the rectification measures for each scheme are distinguished w
a red color.   
Scheme Rectification Measure Dimension

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  3  of  1
     
 
— Original scheme
 
 
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW       3  of

     

   

Three‑ sectional
5  
diversion pier
     
 
        

     
 
   
6 Triangle column
 
 
       
 
     

 
   
7 Straight back baffle  
   
 
 
   
     
5. Result Analysis
 
5.1. Anti‑Vortex  
Effect in the Forebay
5.1.1. Flow Pattern Improvement
Figure 7 is the surface (Section 3) streamline  and axial velocity contour chart of each
 
scheme. The red arrows mean the flow direction. In Figure 7a, the flow pattern of the orig‑
 
inal scheme in the forebay and sump is extremely   disorganized. Two recirculation zones
are located in the north and south intake channels recorded as NRZ and SRZ. Moreover,
the SRZ is much larger than NRZ due to the discharge of north intake channel, which is
 
double that of the south intake channel. The formation
  of NRZ and SRZ contributes to the
clash flow caused by the huge discharge difference. Another large‑scale recirculation zone
nearly covering the entire forebay is recorded as FRZ. Moreover, the offset flow (OF) oc‑
curs in all sumps, and the circumfluence flow (CF) exists in the sump 3# and 4#. The vortex
is observed in the sump 4#, recorded as SV. In Figure 7b, the flow pattern in the forebay is
slightly improved. The NRZ disappears and is absorbed to breed a new FRZ. The SRZ is
pushed away from the sump. The dimension of circulation zones obviously reduces. The
range of CF tends to be lower but some SVs are born in sump 3# and 4#. In Figure 7c, the
distribution of the recirculation zones differs significantly. The SRZ eliminates due to the
V‑shaped diversion pier, but a FRZ is refreshed in the eastern forebay away from the sump.
The former FRZ is forced to move towards to be away from the sump and then is broken up
into two, and the NRZ reforms. The mainstream is split to two sub‑streams. The western

 
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 11 of 24

sub‑stream of north intake channel is guided in sump 3#–4# and the western sub‑stream of
south intake channel is guided in sump 1#. The eastern sub‑stream of north intake channel
flows in sump 1#–2#. Yet, the eastern sub‑stream of south intake channel visits the forebay
and finally circles into sump 1#. The vortices behind the V‑shaped diversion pier installed
in the forebay are born, which are recorded as FVs. By the way, the CFs and SVs still ex‑
ists. In Figure 7d, The FRZ is well split with dimension reduction when the symmetrical
川‑shaped diversion pier is adopted. However, some tiny vortices or recirculation zones
are distributed instead in the forebay. The SRZ and NRZ are surveyed. The OFs in sump
1#–2# eliminate. The OFs and CFs in the other sumps are improved, especially in sump
3#. The range of SV in sump 3# decreases obviously. In Figure 7e, the circular column
is helpful to suppress the tiny vortex and recirculation zone in the forebay, making the
stream in the forebay smoothly. The FRZ, NRZ and SRZ are locked in the labyrinthine
created by the combined anti‑vortex measures, benefiting the flow pattern in the forebay
and sump. In sump 1#–3#, no CF, SV and OF is observed. In sump 4#, the CF and SV
still exist. Nevertheless, the asymmetrical inflow of the suction pipe should be noted for
every scheme.
Figure 8 is the middle (Section 2) streamline and axial velocity contour chart of each
scheme. Overall, the flow pattern in the middle is similar with the surface. In Figure 8a,
the FRZ, SRZ and some small vortices are observed in the forebay. The range of the FRZ
extends to the location of the NRZ on the surface. The OFs also happen in all sumps. The
CVs and vortices are seen in sump 3# and 4#. The size of the vortices is more obvious than
it on the surface. The stream from the south intake channel is mainly flows into sump 1#,
and the stream in the other sumps is originated from the north intake channel whose main‑
stream is badly squeezed. In Figure 8b, the range of the FRZ decreases, but the number of
the FRZ increases. The SRZ is forced to the direction away from the sump and its dimen‑
sion expands. The stream from the south intake channel flows into sump 1# and 2#. On
the opposite, the stream from the north intake channel flows into sump 2#–4#. The inflow
squeeze state is improved. The OFs, SVs and CFs of each sump are weakened. In Figure 8c,
the flow patterns in the forebay such as the SRZ, FRZs and FVs are similar to those on the
surface. But the streamline in the sump tends to deteriorate more than that on the surface.
In Figure 8d, the SRZ and NRZ are forced to the forebay. The FRZ is improved and its
dimension decreases. The smoothness in the sump 1# and 2# is ameliorated. However, the
flow pattern in the sump 3# and 4# is basically the same as Scheme 2. In Figure 8e, there
are still recirculation zones in the forebay, but their dimension decreases. The flow pattern
in the sump is similar with Scheme 3. The inflow in sump 1#–3# is smooth. For all sumps,
the stream near the suction pipe is unsatisfactory, especially the asymmetrical flow and
SVs. Therefore, the installation of rectification measures in the sump is essential.
Figure 9 is the bottom (Section 1) streamline and axial velocity contour chart of each
scheme. In Figure 9a, the flow pattern at the bottom is similar with Sections 2 and 3. Among
the three horizontal sections, the inflow of the north intake channel is mostly squeezed.
In other words, the range of recirculation zone is largest. There are three vortex cores
in the forebay. Due to the influence of clash flow, large scale recirculation zone (SRZ) is
more likely to be generated near the inlet with small discharge. Another recirculation zone
(FRZ) is located in the forebay. The flow pattern in the sump for each horizontal section is
similar, but the strength of the SV is maximum. In Figure 9b, the squeezed inflow is well
improved. The range of recirculation zone decreases. However, the OFs, CFs and SVs in
the sump are not significantly improved. In Figure 9c, the flow pattern at the bottom is
also similar to Sections 2 and 3. The improvement of the flow pattern in the forebay is not
obvious. Moreover, the OFs, CFs and SVs in the sump are growing, and are not suppressed.
In Figure 9d, the range of FRZ diminishes, yet the range of SRZ and NRZ expands. The
OFs, CFs and SVs in the sump are still unsatisfactory. In Figure 9e, large‑scale recirculation
zones basically disappear. Nevertheless, the SVs are widespread in all sumps.
cesses 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 12 of 24

FigureFigure 7. Surface
7. Surface streamlineand
streamline and axial
axial velocity
velocitycontour chart.
contour chart.

Figure 8 is the middle (Section 2) streamline and axial velocity contour chart of ea
scheme. Overall, the flow pattern in the middle is similar with the surface. In Figure
the FRZ, SRZ and some small vortices are observed in the forebay. The range of the FR
extends to the location of the NRZ on the surface. The OFs also happen in all sumps. T
CVs and vortices are seen in sump 3# and 4#. The size of the vortices is more obvious th
 In Figure 8e, there are still recirculation zones in the forebay, but their dimension d
creases. The flow pattern in the sump is similar with Scheme 3. The inflow in sump 1#−
is smooth. For all sumps, the stream near the suction pipe is unsatisfactory, especially t
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 asymmetrical flow and SVs. Therefore, the installation of rectification measures
13 of 24 in t
sump is essential.

FigureFigure 8. Middle
8. Middle streamlineand
streamline and axial
axial velocity
velocitycontour chart.
contour chart.
 is not obvious. Moreover, the OFs, CFs and SVs in the sump are growing, and
suppressed. In Figure 9d, the range of FRZ diminishes, yet the range of SRZ an
expands. The OFs, CFs and SVs in the sump are still unsatisfactory. In Fig
Processes 2022, 10, 2398
large−scale recirculation zones basically disappear. Nevertheless, the SVs are wide
14 of 24
in all sumps.

Figure 9. Bottom streamline and axial velocity contour chart.

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 15 of 24

Figure 9. Bottom streamline and axial velocity contour chart.

5.1.2. Vortex Distribution
5.1.2. Vortex Distribution
Figure 10 is the vortex distribution contour in the forebay by utilizing Q Criterion. For
the Figure
original10scheme,
is the vortex distribution
vortices frequentlycontour
occur,inspreading
the forebay by nearly
over utilizing Q Criterion.
40% of the forebay.
For the original scheme, vortices frequently occur, spreading over nearly
As shown in Figure 10b–e, the vortex is eliminated in the intake channel by 40% ofthe
thestraight
fore- di‑
bay. As shown in Figure 10b–e, the vortex is eliminated in the intake channel by the
version pier and curved wing wall for scheme 1. The vortex at the entrance of the forebay
straight diversion pier and curved wing wall for scheme 1. The vortex at the entrance of
is significantly reduced, resulting in the initial improvement of the flow pattern. However,
the forebay is significantly reduced, resulting in the initial improvement of the flow pat-
there are still large vortices and backflow at the wing wall and the center of the forebay.
tern. However, there are still large vortices and backflow at the wing wall and the center
For scheme 2, V‑shaped diversion piers at the inlet of the forebay is arranged to guide
of the forebay. For scheme 2, V−shaped diversion piers at the inlet of the forebay is ar-
the stream and improve the flow pattern. The vortex near the wing wall is solved. Mean‑
ranged to guide the stream and improve the flow pattern. The vortex near the wing wall
while, a new vortex occurs behind the V‑shaped diversion pier. More than this, two large
is solved. Meanwhile, a new vortex occurs behind the V−shaped diversion pier. More than
scale recirculation zones are observed in the forebay. For scheme 3, the flow pattern is
this, two large scale recirculation zones are observed in the forebay. For scheme 3, the flow
further issmoothed
pattern with the symmetrical
further smoothed 川‑shaped diversion
with the symmetrical 川 −shaped pier. The large‑scale
diversion pier. The recircu‑
lation zone is eliminated and replaced by some tiny vortices. For scheme
large−scale recirculation zone is eliminated and replaced by some tiny vortices. For 4, the circular
columns
scheme are circular
4, the utilizedcolumns
to remove
arethe vortices
utilized in the forebay.
to remove Theindimension
the vortices ofThe
the forebay. the di-
vortices
decreases rapidly.
mension of the vortices decreases rapidly.

(a) Original Scheme (b) Scheme 1

(c) Scheme 2 (d) Scheme 3

(e) Scheme 4

Figure 10. Vortex distribution in forebay.

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Processes 2022, 10, 2398 Figure 10. Vortex distribution in forebay. 16 of 24

The recirculation coefficients of each scheme are calculated using Equation (7

are The recirculation
listed in Tablecoefficients of each
3. It can be seenscheme arerecirculation
that the calculated usingcoefficient
Equation (7),
ofwhich
the origina
are listed in Table 3. It can be seen that the recirculation coefficient of the original scheme
is 0.347, and the recirculation coefficients of each scheme are 0.233, 0.206, 0.202 a
is 0.347, and the recirculation coefficients of each scheme are 0.233, 0.206, 0.202 and 0.193
respectively,
respectively, meaning
meaning the recirculation
the recirculation zone andzone
vortexand vortex
are well are well
treated. treated.
For scheme For schem
4, the
range
range of of recirculation
recirculation zone zone and isvortex
and vortex reducedis by
reduced
44.4%. by 44.4%.

Table 3. Recirculation coefficient of each scheme.

Table 3. Recirculation coefficient of each scheme.
Original
Scheme 1Original
Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4
Scheme
Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Sc
Recirculation Scheme
0.396 0.261 0.352 0.263 0.263
volume ratio
Recirculation volume ratio 0.396 0.261 0.352 0.263
Recirculation
Recirculation velocity
0.875 ratio 0.893 0.875 0.583 0.8930.766 0.583 0.735 0.766
velocity ratio
Recirculation coefficient
Recirculation
0.347 0.233 0.206 0.202
0.347 0.233 0.206 0.202 0.193
coefficient
5.1.3. Hydraulic Loss Performance
5.1.3. Hydraulic Loss Performance
The hydraulic loss performance is highly important for the pump station op
The hydraulic loss performance is highly important for the pump station operation.
Hence, hydraulic losses data of different schemes are calculated by Equation
Hence, hydraulic losses data of different schemes are calculated by Equation (4) and drawn
drawn
in Figure in
11.Figure 11.

Figure
Figure11.11.
Hydraulic loss trend
Hydraulic loss chart
trendofchart
each scheme.
of each scheme.
For original scheme, the hydraulic loss is 0.363 m. The installation of anti‑vortex mea‑
sures inFor original
the forebay andscheme, the inhydraulic
sump results the increaseloss is 0.363performance.
of hydraulic m. The installation
Among the of ant
measuresschemes,
anti‑vortex in the theforebay and
hydraulic losssump results
of scheme in the increase
2 is maximum, of hydraulic
and its value is 0.401 m, perfo
increases by 10.46%. The hydraulic loss of scheme 7 is minimum,
Among the anti−vortex schemes, the hydraulic loss of scheme 2 is maximum, and its value is 0.366 m, and
which is almost equal to the original scheme. Usually, large‑scale recirculation and vortices
is 0.401 m, increases by 10.46%. The hydraulic loss of scheme 7 is minimum, and
consume vast energy. Therefore, the hydraulic loss of original scheme mainly contributes
isthe
to 0.366 m, which
adverse is almost
flow pattern. equal
Although theto the original
attachment scheme.
of each Usually,
anti‑vortex measure large−scale
is benefi‑ recir
cial for the flow pattern and suppress the vortices, the local hydraulic loss increases sharply. schem
and vortices consume vast energy. Therefore, the hydraulic loss of original
contributes
Hence, to the
the hydraulic lossadverse flow pattern.
of the anti‑vortex measure Although
scheme is due the attachment
to the recirculationofand
each ant
vortices, but mainly depends on the local hydraulic loss.
measure is beneficial for the flow pattern and suppress the vortices, the local h
loss increases sharply. Hence, the hydraulic loss of the anti−vortex measure schem
to the recirculation and vortices, but mainly depends on the local hydraulic loss.

5.2. Rectification Efficiency in Sump

5.2.1. Axial Velocity Uniformity
To gain the vertical axial velocity distribution on the inlet of the sump and
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 17 of 24

5.2. Rectification Efficiency in Sump

5.2.1. Axial Velocity Uniformity
, x FOR2022,
Processes PEER10,REVIEW
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16the
To gain the vertical axial velocity distribution on the inlet of the sump and near of16bell
23
of 23
mouth, the axial velocities on the characteristic lines of the Sections 4 and 5 are extracted,
and the characteristic lines are marked as line 1–6, shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Diagram of characteristic lines on the inlet of the sump and near the bell mouth.
Figure 12. Diagram Figure 12. Diagram of characteristic
of characteristic lines on thelines
inletonofthe inlet
the of theand
sump sump andthe
near nearbell
the bell mouth.
mouth.
Figures 13–16 are the axial velocity chart on the inlet of the sump. In which, “#” is the
number symbol Figuresof 13–16 are the
the unit. Inaxial velocity
Figure 13, achart
hugeonaxial
the inlet of thedifference
velocity sump. In which,
in sump“#”1# is the
from
Figures 13–16 numberare the axial
symbol of velocity
the unit. Inchart
Figureon13,the
a inletaxial
huge of the sump.
velocity In which,
difference in “#” 1#
sump is from
the
the bottom to the surface is captured for the original scheme. When the height is 0.6 m,
number symbol
the axialof bottom
the the unit.
velocity Inobviously
to is
the Figure
surface is 13, a huge
captured
smaller axial
for
than thevelocity
the original difference
scheme.
other heights. When inthe
sump
height
For rectification 1#isschemes,
from
0.6 m,
the bottomsuch the surface
to the axial velocity is obviously smaller than the other heights. For rectification is schemes,
situation is is
well captured
improved. for IntheFigures
original 14 scheme.
and 15, the When axialthe height
velocity 0.6 m, of
distribution
the axial velocity such is situation
obviously is well improved. In Figures 14 and 15, the axial velocity distribution of
original scheme on thesmaller
inlet of than
sumpthe other3#heights.
2# and differs too Formuch.
rectification
The axialschemes,
original scheme on the inlet of sump 2# and 3# differs too much. The axial velocity increases
velocity in-
such situation isfrom
creases well
fromtheimproved.
the bottom
bottom to the Insurface.
to Figures
the By 14
surface. and
By
applying 15,
the the
applying axial
the velocity
rectification
rectification distribution
measures,measures, theof
the axial velocity axial
original scheme
velocity on the and
decreases
decreases inletbecomes
and of becomes
sump more2#uniform.
and uniform.
more 3#Asdiffers
shown Astoo much.
inshown
Figure in Theaxial
16,Figure
the axial
16, velocity
the
velocityaxial in-
velocity
is uneven.
creases fromis uneven.
theAfter After
bottom arranging
to
arranging the the rectification
the surface.
rectificationBymeasures,
applying measures,
thethe the improvement
rectification
improvement is notmeasures,
obvious.is notthe
obvious.
axial
velocity decreases and becomes more uniform. As shown in Figure 16, the axial velocity
is uneven. After arranging the rectification measures, the improvement is not obvious.

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

FigureFigure
13. Diagram of axial
13. Diagram velocity
of axial on on
velocity thethe
inlet ofofthe
inlet thesump
sump1#.
1#.

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

Figure 13. Diagram of axial velocity on the inlet of the sump 1#.
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 (c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7 18 of 24

Figure 13. Diagram of axial velocity on the inlet of the sump 1#.

ses
sses2022,
2022,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 17
17ofof23
23

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

(c)
(c)Scheme
Scheme66 (d)
(d)Scheme
Scheme77
Figure
Figure14.
14.Diagram
Figure 14. of
Diagram ofaxial
axialvelocity
Diagram on
onthe
theinlet
of axial velocity
velocity on ofof
the
inlet the
thesump
inlet ofsump 2#.
the sump
2#. 2#.

(a)
(a)Original
Originalscheme
scheme (b)
(b)Scheme
Scheme55

(c)
(c)Scheme
Scheme66 (d)
(d)Scheme
Scheme77
Figure
Figure15.
15.Diagram15. of
Diagram
Figure ofaxial
axialvelocity
Diagram velocity on
onthe
theinlet
of axial velocity inlet
on ofof
the the
thesump
inlet ofsump 3#.
3#. 3#.
the sump
Figures 17–20 are the axial velocity chart before the bell mouth in the sump. In
Figure 17a, the axial velocity decreases at a depth of 0.6 m, which is similar to the inlet of the
sump. In Figure 17b,c, it is obvious that the axial velocity of each layer at the bell mouth is
close to each other without obvious fluctuations by rectification. In Figures 18 and 19, the
axial velocity starts to decrease at a depth of 1.5 m for each rectification scheme. The ax‑
ial velocity has been significantly improved and the flow pattern has been optimized with
the measures of three‑sectional diversion pier, triangle column and straight back baffle, as
shown in Figure 20.

(a)
(a)Original
Originalscheme
scheme (b)
(b)Scheme
Scheme55
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 (c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7 19 of 24

Figure 15. Diagram of axial velocity on the inlet of the sump 3#.

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

cesses 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

the axial velocity starts to decrease at a depth of 1.5 m for each rectification scheme. The
axial velocity has (c) Scheme
been 6
significantly improved and the flow pattern (d) Scheme 7
has been optimized
with the measures
Figure 16.Figure
Diagram of three−sectional
of axial velocity
16. Diagram on the on
of axial velocity
diversion
inlet
theof
pier,
theofsump
inlet
triangle
4#. 4#.
the sump
column and straight back
baffle, as shown in Figure 20.
Figures 17–20 are the axial velocity chart before the bell mouth in the sump. In Figure
17a, the axial velocity decreases at a depth of 0.6 m, which is similar to the inlet of the
sump. In Figure 17b,c, it is obvious that the axial velocity of each layer at the bell mouth
is close to each other without obvious fluctuations by rectification. In Figures 18 and 19,

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

Figure 17. Diagram
Figure of axialofvelocity
17. Diagram before
axial velocity the bell
before mouth
the bell in the
mouth sump
in the 1#.1#.
sump
Table 4 shows the axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle
of Section 5 in the sump for each scheme. As shown in the table, the axial velocity unifor‑
mity of the original scheme is poor. The maximum value is 56.94% and the minimum value
is just 37.9%. Compared with the original scheme, axial velocity uniformity of Section 5
for schemes 5–7 in the four sumps are significantly improved, with an average increase
of 34.9%. For scheme 6, the axial velocity uniformity in sump 1#–3# is excellent, and the
smoothness of the flow in sump 4# does not change significantly. For scheme 7, the axial
velocity uniformity of sump 1#–3# is slightly improved, and the axial velocity uniformity
of sump 4# is slightly decreased. Moreover, the axial velocity weighted average angle of
the original schemescheme
is still relatively small. The maximum(b)
value is 61.17 ◦
(a) Original Scheme 5 , the minimum
◦
value is 33.49 . The axial velocity weighted average angle of schemes 5–7 in sump 1#–3#
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 20 of 24

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

80◦Scheme
is larger than(c) 6 velocity weighted average angle of(d)
. The axial Scheme
schemes 5–77in sump 4# is
Figuremore
17.Diagram
Diagram ◦
than 60of,ofwhich is almost
axialvelocity
velocity two times
before than
thebell
bell the original
mouth scheme.
Figure 17. axial before the mouth ininthe
thesump
sump 1#.
1#.

(a)Original
(a) Originalscheme
scheme (b)Scheme
(b) Scheme5 5

(c)Scheme
(c) Scheme6 6 (d)Scheme
(d) Scheme7 7
Figure18.
Figure18. Diagram
Figure
Diagram ofofaxial
18. Diagramaxial velocity
of velocity
axial before
velocity thethe
before
before the bell
bell mouth
bell inin
mouth
mouth in the
thethe sump 2#
sump2#
sump 2#.

rocesses 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

(a)Original
(a) Originalscheme
scheme (b)Scheme
(b) Scheme5 5

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

Figure Figure
19. Diagram of axial
19. Diagram velocity
of axial before
velocity thethe
before bellbell
mouth ininthe
mouth thesump
sump 3#
3#.
Table 5 is the axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle of
Section 4 in the sump for each scheme. There is a large difference in the axial velocity
uniformity of each sump for the original scheme. The maximum value is 76.51% and the
minimum value is 16.74%. Compared with the original scheme, the axial velocity unifor‑
mity and smoothness in the sump 2#–4# of scheme 5 enlarges, increasing significantly by
36.5% on average. For schemes 6 and 7, the axial velocity uniformity of sump 1#–3# in‑
creases lightly. Nevertheless, the axial velocity uniformity of sump 4# further increases
by 11.43% and 4.92%. The axial velocity weighted average angle of the original scheme is

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

Processes 2022, 10, 2398 21 of 24

79.85◦ at the (c)

maximum
Schemeand6 59.9◦ at the minimum. For the rectification schemes,
(d) Scheme 7 the axial
velocity weighted average angle is improved at more than 84◦ . Finally, scheme 7 is the
Figureadvised
19. Diagram of axial velocity before the bell mouth in the sump 3#
scheme.

(a) Original scheme (b) Scheme 5

(c) Scheme 6 (d) Scheme 7

FigureFigure
20. Diagram of axial
20. Diagram velocity
of axial before
velocity thethe
before bell
bellmouth
mouthin
in the
the sump 4#
sump 4#.

Table 4. Axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle of Section 5 for
Table 4 shows the axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle
each scheme.
of Section 5 in the sump for each scheme. As shown in the table, the axial velocity uni-
formity1#of the original scheme 2# is poor. The maximum 3# value is 56.94% and4#the minimum
Scheme
Vvalue
au /%
is just
θa 37.9%.
/( ◦ ) Compared
V au /% withθa /(the
◦ ) original scheme,θaaxial
V au /% /( ◦ ) velocity uniformity
V au /% θa /( ◦of
) Sec-
Original scheme tion 5 for schemes
37.89 61.17 5−7 56.94
in the four42.34
sumps are 47.05 significantly improved,
36.90 with an average
48.29 33.49 in-
Scheme 6 crease of 34.9%.
81.61 86.51 For scheme84.31 6, the axial
83.60 velocity uniformity
81.87 in sump 1#−3#
80.67 81.88 is excellent,
60.66 and
Scheme 7 81.61
the smoothness86.51 of the 84.33
flow in sump 83.614# does81.86 not change80.75 81.98For scheme
significantly. 60.88 7, the
Scheme 8 81.64 86.48 84.31 83.61 81.95 80.93 81.68 61.15
axial velocity uniformity of sump 1#−3# is slightly improved, and the axial velocity uni-
formity of sump 4# is slightly decreased. Moreover, the axial velocity weighted average
angleTable 5. Axial
of the velocity
original uniformity
scheme andrelatively
is still axial velocity weighted
small. Theaverage
maximumangle of Section
value is 461.17°,
for eachthe
scheme.
minimum value is 33.49°. The axial velocity weighted average angle of schemes 5−7 in
sump 1#−3#
1# is larger than 80°.2#The axial velocity weighted 3# average angle of 4# schemes 5−7
Scheme in sump 4# is more ◦ than 60°, which is◦ almost two times than◦ the original scheme. ◦
V au /% θa /( ) V au /% θa /( ) V au /% θa /( ) V au /% θa /( )
Original scheme 76.51 59.90 40.83 74.20 42.12
Table 4. Axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted73.89 16.74
average angle of Section79.85
5 for each
Scheme 5 80.12 84.93 79.56 84.41 75.33 85.06 54.44 84.26
Scheme 6 scheme.
80.32 85.01 79.62 84.58 75.72 85.56 65.87 84.72
Scheme 7 80.38 85.01 79.73 84.71 75.75 85.56 70.79 84.82
1# 2# 3# 4#
Scheme
Vau/% θa/( °) Vau/% θa/( °) Vau/% θa/( °) Vau/% θa/( °)
5.2.2. Outflow Discharge Balance
Original
37.89
Figure 61.17
21 shows 56.94discharge
the outflow 42.34of each
47.05 36.90for each
suction pipe 48.29
scheme.33.49
For
scheme
original scheme, the outflow discharge of each suction pipe differs too much. Discharge
Scheme 6 between
D‑value 81.61 the86.51 84.31
outlet of the suction83.60 81.87
pipe 1# and 80.67
4# is almost 70 kg·s−81.88
1 . When the60.66
rec‑
Scheme 7 81.61
tification measures 86.51 84.33
are installed, 83.61in the81.86
the difference 80.75
outlet of the 81.98
suction pipe 60.88
is narrowed,
the outflow
Scheme 8 81.64 discharge
86.48becomes more balanced,
84.31 83.61 especially
81.95 for scheme
80.93 8. The81.68standard de‑
61.15
viation and variance were used to assess the degree of dispersion of a data set. The smaller
the value is, the closer to the average is. In this manuscript, this can reflect on the stability
 Processes 2022, 10, 2398 22 of 24

of the outflow discharge to a certain extent. For the original scheme, the standard devia‑
tion and variance are 751.06 and 27.41. For scheme 5, the standard deviation and variance
are 100.39 and 10.02. For scheme 6, the standard deviation and variance are 189.08 and
13.75.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW For scheme 7, the standard deviation and variance are 3.32 and 1.82. As a result, it 21 of 2
is further verified that the flow is basically stable by the combined rectification measures
of “three‑sectional diversion pier + column + straight back baffle” in sumps.

Figure21.
Figure 21.Outflow
Outflow discharge
discharge of each
of each scheme.
scheme.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
To solve the turbulent flow in a pump station with laterally asymmetric inflow, a re‑
To solve
cent flow patternthe wasturbulent flow
numerically in a pump
simulated station with
and analyzed, and laterally asymmetric
then the effective vortexinflow,
recent flowmeasures
elimination pattern was suchnumerically
as the “straightsimulated
diversion and
pieranalyzed,
+ curved andwingthen the“straight
wall”, effective vortex
elimination
diversion piermeasures
+ curved wingsuchwall
as +the “straight
V‑shaped diversion
diversion pier
pier”, + curved wing
“ symmetrical wall”,
川‑shaped di‑“straigh
version
diversion pier”, “ symmetrical
pier + curved wing 川‑shaped
wall +diversion
V−shaped pierdiversion
+ circular pier”,
column” “three‑ sectional
“ symmetrical 川−shaped
diversion pier”, “three‑ sectional diversion pier + triangle column”
diversion pier”, “ symmetrical 川−shaped diversion pier + circular column” “three− sec and “three‑sectional
diversion pier + triangle
tional diversion pier”,column
“three−+ straight
sectional back baffle” were
diversion pier proposed.
+ triangle The following
column” andcon‑
“three−sec
clusions can be drawn:
tional diversion pier + triangle column + straight back baffle” were proposed. The follow
(1) For the original scheme, the flow pattern in the forebay was extremely irregular.
ing conclusions can be drawn:
A large‑scale recirculation zone was observed, covering about 40% region of the forebay.
(1) Forrecirculation
The existing the originalzonescheme,
pushed the
andflow pattern
squeezed thein the forebay
mainstream was
in the extremely
intake channel. irregular
A large−scale recirculation zone was
Flow separation and obvious vortices were observed; observed, covering about 40% region of the forebay
The (2)
existing
For each recirculation zone pushed
anti‑vortex measures of each and squeezed
scheme in the the mainstream
forebay, in the intake
the flow pattern was chan
nel. Flow Among
improved. separation andschemes,
the four obviousthe vortices
combined were observed;
anti‑vortex measures of “straight diver‑
sion pier
(2) +For
curved
eachwing wall + V‑shaped
anti−vortex measures diversion
of eachpier + symmetrical
scheme 川‑shaped
in the forebay, the diversion
flow pattern wa
pier + circular column” effectively improved the flow
improved. Among the four schemes, the combined anti−vortex measures pattern in the forebay. The clash in‑
of “straight di
flow in the south and north intake channel was suppressed by applying the “straight diver‑
version pier + curved wing wall + V−shaped diversion pier + symmetrical 川−shaped di
sion pier + curved wing wall + V‑shaped diversion pier”. The “symmetrical 川‑shaped di‑
version pier + circular column” effectively improved the flow pattern in the forebay. Th
version pier” and “symmetrical 川‑shaped diversion pier + circular column” were adopted
clash
to weaken inflow in the
the bias flowsouth and north
and large‑scale intake channel
recirculation zone in was suppressed
the forebay. by applying
The volume of th
“straight diversion pier + curved wing
the recirculation and the vortices were reduced by 44%;wall + V−shaped diversion pier”. The “symmetrica
川−shaped
(3) All the diversion pier”
rectification schemes can constrict the川−shaped
and “symmetrical vortices anddiversion
asymmetric pier
flow + near
circular col
umn”
the were
suction adopted
pipe to weaken
in the sump. the bias
However, flow andrectification
the combined large−scalemeasures
recirculation zone in th
of “three‑
sectional diversion pier + triangle column + straight back
forebay. The volume of the recirculation and the vortices were reduced by 44%;baffle” are the most effective.
(3) All the rectification schemes can constrict the vortices and asymmetric flow nea
the suction pipe in the sump. However, the combined rectification measures of “three−sec
tional diversion pier + triangle column + straight back baffle” are the most effective. Axia
velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle greatly increased, espe
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 23 of 24

Axial velocity uniformity and axial velocity weighted average angle greatly increased, es‑
pecially on the section before the bell mouth of the suction pipe, with values enhanced by
an average of 32.61% and 13.07◦ , respectively.

Author Contributions: Data curation, C.L. and L.C.; Methodology, C.L. and X.C.; Formal analysis,
Y.S.; Writing—original draft, C.L., Y.H. and S.L.; Writing—review and editing, C.L., Y.H. and C.D.;
Supervision, C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Jiangsu Province Science Foundation for Youths (Grant no.
BK20170507), Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (Grant no.
SJCX22_1759), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52279091, 522019116), Nat‑
ural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (Grant no. 17KJD580003),
Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds (Grant no. 1701189B), Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the College of Hydraulic Science and Engineering, Yangzhou
University. The author is very grateful for the discussions with Luo C and Lei S H. A huge thanks is
due to the editor and reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the quality of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Nasr, A.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Hassan, M. Analysis of the Flow Pattern and Flow Rectification Measures of the Side‑
Intake Forebay in a Multi‑Unit Pumping Station. Water 2021, 13, 2025. [CrossRef]
2. Song, W.; Pang, Y.; Shi, X.; Xu, Q. Study on the rectification of forebay in pumping station. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2876980.
[CrossRef]
3. Zhao, H.; Yang, F.; Liu, C.; Chen, S.; He, J. Numerical simulation of side‑intake flow for fluid meliorating of pumping stations.
Water Resour. Hydropower Eng. 2017, 48, 79–84. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, C.; Yan, H.; Jamil, M.T.; Yu, Y. Improvement of the Flow Pattern of a Forebay with a Side‑Intake Pumping Station by
Diversion Piers Based on Orthogonal Test Method. Water 2022, 14, 2663. [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, J.; Zhao, M.; Wang, C.; Gao, Z. Optimal Design of Diversion Piers of Lateral Intake Pumping Station Based on Orthogonal
Test. Shock Vib. 2021, 2021, 6616456. [CrossRef]
6. Xi, W.; Lu, W.G. Formation Mechanism of an Adherent Vortex in the Side Pump Sump of a Pumping Station. Int. J. Simul. Model.
2021, 20, 327–338. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Wang, T.; Jiang, D.; Jin, Y. Numerical and Experimental Investigations of Flow Pattern and Anti‑
Vortex Measures of Forebay in a Multi‑Unit Pumping Station. Water 2021, 13, 935. [CrossRef]
8. Luo, C.; Liu, C. Numerical simulation and improvement of side‑intake characteristics of multi‑unit pumping station. J. Hydro‑
electr. Eng. 2015, 34, 207–214. [CrossRef]
9. Luo, C.; Qian, J.; Liu, C.; Chen, F.; Zhou, Q. Numerical simulation and test verification on diversion pier rectifying flow in
forebay of pumping station for asymmetric combined sluice‑pump station project. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31,
100–108. [CrossRef]
10. Choi, J.; Choi, Y.; Kim, C.; Lee, Y. Flow uniformity in a multi‑intake pump sump model. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24, 1389–1400.
[CrossRef]
11. Zhang, Y.; Song, S.; Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Fu, X. Numerical Simulation of Rectification Measures for Side‑direction Forebay in Pump
Station. China Rural Water Hydropower 2016, 5, 117–120. [CrossRef]
12. Zhou, J.; Zhong, S.; Liang, J.; Shi, X. Three‑dimensional Numerical Simulation of Side‑intake Forebay of Pumping Station. J. Irrig.
Drain. 2015, 34, 52–55+80. [CrossRef]
13. Kadam, P.; Chavan, D. CFD analysis of flow in pump sump to check suitability for better performance of pump. Int. J. Mech.
Eng. Robot. 2013, 1, 59–65.
14. Xia, C.; Cheng, L.; Zhao, G.; Yu, L.; Wu, M.; Xu, W. Numerical simulation of flow pattern in forebay of pump station with single
row of square columns. Adv. Sci. Technol. Water Resour. 2017, 37, 53–58. [CrossRef]
15. Chen, L.; Liu, C. Hydraulic performance of pump sumps based on CFD approach. J. Hohai Univ. Nat. Sci. 2009, 37, 52–56.
16. Constantinescu, G.; Patel, V. Role of turbulence model in prediction of pump‑bay vortices. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2000, 126, 387–391.
[CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2398 24 of 24

17. Xu, C.; Wang, R.; Liu, H.; Zhang, R.; Wang, M.; Wang, Y. Flow pattern and anti‑silt measures of straight‑edge forebay in large
pump stations. Int. J. Heat Technol. 2018, 36, 1130–1139. [CrossRef]
18. Ying, J.; Yu, X.; He, W.; Zhang, J. Volume of fluid model‑based flow pattern in forebay of pump station and combined rectification
Scheme. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2020, 38, 476–480. [CrossRef]
19. Wu, X.; Pen, Z.; Fu, Q.; Zhong, S.; Song, Y. Study on lmprovement Measures of Flow Pattern in Inlet Water Pumping Station.
J. Irrig. Drain. 2019, 38, 96–100. [CrossRef]
20. Zi, D.; Wang, F.; Yao, Z.; Hou, Y.; Xiao, R.; He, C.; Yang, E. Effects analysis on rectifying intake flow field for large scale pumping
station with combined diversion piers. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 71–77. [CrossRef]
21. Yu, Y.; Cheng, B. CFD simulation and optimization on inflow pattern of diversion and intake pumping stations with side‑inlet.
Water Resour. Hydropower Eng. 2012, 43, 72–75+89. [CrossRef]
22. Shi, L.; Zhang, W.; Jiao, H.; Tang, F.; Wang, L.; Sun, D.; Shi, W. Numerical simulation and experimental study on the comparison
of the hydraulic characteristics of an axial‑flow pump and a full tubular pump. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 1455–1464. [CrossRef]
23. Luo, C.; Du, K.; Qi, W.; Cheng, L.; Huang, X.; Lu, J. Investigation on the effect of the shaft transition form on the inflow pattern
and hydrodynamic characteristics of the pre‑shaft tubular pump device. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 955492. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, F.; Li, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Lin, Z.; Zhou, G.; Ji, Q. Study on vortex flow and pressure fluctuation in dustpan‑shaped conduit of a
low head axial‑flow pump as turbine. Renew. Energy 2022, 196, 856–869. [CrossRef]
25. Shi, L.; Zhu, J.; Tang, F.; Wang, C. Multi‑Disciplinary Optimization Design of Axial‑Flow Pump Impellers Based on the Approx‑
imation Model. Energies 2020, 13, 779. [CrossRef]
26. Kan, K.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, Z.; Chen, H.; Zheng, Y.; Zhou, D.; Binama, M. Study on a horizontal axial flow pump during runaway
process with bidirectional operating conditions. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21834. [CrossRef]
27. Shi, L.; Yuan, Y.; Jiao, H.; Tang, F.; Cheng, L.; Yang, F.; Jin, Y.; Zhu, J. Numerical investigation and experiment on pressure
pulsation characteristics in a full tubular pump. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 987–1000. [CrossRef]
28. Zi, D.; Wang, F.; He, C.; Xue, S. Influences of start‑up pump units on the sediment concentration for the intake system of a
pumping station. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2022, 38, 59–68.
29. Siemens A&D Groups. NX 12 Help. 2017. Available online: https://docs.plm.automation.siemens.com/tdoc/nx/12/nx_help (ac‑
cessed on 10 October 2022).
30. GB 50265‑2022; Standard for Pumping Station Design. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s
Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2022.
31. Xu, B.; Liu, J.; Lu, W. Optimization Design of Y‑Shaped Settling Diversion Wall Based on Orthogonal Test. Machines 2022, 10, 91.
[CrossRef]
32. Zhang, W.; Shi, L.; Tang, F.; Duan, X.; Liu, H.; Sun, Z. Analysis of inlet flow passage conditions and their influence on the
performance of an axial‑flow pump. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 2020, 235, 733–746. [CrossRef]
33. Hunt, J.; Wray, A.; Moin, P. Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. Cent. Turbul. Res. Proc. Summer Program.
1988, 1, 193–208.