MASTER'S THESIS

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic Modeling of Hydraulic Jumps

Patrick Jonsson

Master of Science in Engineering Technology Mechanical Engineering

Lule University of Technology Department Engineering Sciences and Mathematics

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic Modeling of Hydraulic Jumps

Patrick Jonsson
Master of Science Programme Mechanical Engineering

Lule University of Technology Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering Division of Fluid Mechanics

Masters Thesis

Cover picture: Copyright Maria Gustavsson.

ii

Abstract
In this thesis the capabilities of the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) method to accurately capture the main features of a hydraulic jump have been investigated. Two conceptually different modeling approaches were tested, the Tank and Inflow approach. The Tank approach incorporated the modeling of a large reservoir tank which in the other case was replaced with an inlet condition. Successful outcomes were achieved for the Tank case but not for the more efficient and less computationally costly Inflow case due to poorly implemented boundary conditions in the software. Comparison of numerical results with theoretical derived values for the Tank case showed systematic under predicted of the velocity in the fast moving jet just after the gate opening. Furthermore, the depth past the turbulent roller region showed a continuously decreasing error when compared with theory which indicates a non-fully developed hydraulic jump at the early stages of the simulation. Comparison with previous work showed both under and over estimation of specific parameters which indicates that the number of particles chosen to represent the system affects the outcomes as roughly seven times more particles was used in this thesis as compared to previous work. Despite these deviations from theory and previous work, the main conclusion is that the SPH-method is a viable tool when performing free-surface flow and particularly hydraulic jump simulations.

iii

iv

Acknowledgement
First I like to thank my supervisors Prof. Staffan Lundstrm, Dr. Gunnar Hellstrm at Lule University of Technology and Prof. Patrik Andreasson at Vattenfall Research & Development AB for giving me the opportunity to do my master thesis as an introduction to my PhD-studies, and also for giving me support when problems occurred. I would like to thank Dr. Pr Jonsn and Lic. Gustaf Gustafsson for invaluable guidance in the intricate subject of Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics and I look forward to future collaboration. I also would like to thank all of my coworkers at the Division of Fluid Mechanics at Lule University of Technology and especially my office companion Simon Johansson for constructive criticism and a creative working environment. The research presented in this thesis was carried out as a part of "Swedish Hydropower Centre - SVC". SVC has been established by the Swedish Energy Agency, Elforsk and Svenska Kraftnt together with Lule University of Technology, The Royal Institute of Technology, Chalmers University of Technology and Uppsala University. Participating hydro power companies are: Alstom, Andritz Hydro, E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige, Fortum Generation, Holmen Energi, Jmtkraft, Karlstads Energi, Linde Energi, Mlarenergi, Skellefte Kraft, Sollefteforsens, Statkraft Sverige, Statoil Lubricants, Sweco Infrastructure, Sweco Energuide, SveMin, Ume Energi, Vattenfall Research and Development, Vattenfall Vattenkraft, VG Power and WSP.

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. v 1 2 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 Theory ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 The Governing Equations ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics ........................................................................ 6 2.2.1 The Kernel Approximation ......................................................................... 8 2.2.2 The Particle Approximation ...................................................................... 11 2.3 Hydraulic Jump ................................................................................................. 13 Method ...................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Boundary Condition .......................................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Inlet Boundary Condition ......................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Outlet Boundary Condition ....................................................................... 22 3.1.3 Wall Boundary Condition ......................................................................... 22 3.2 Material Modeling ............................................................................................ 23 3.3 Modeling Approaches ....................................................................................... 25 3.3.1 TANK Method .......................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 INFLOW Method ..................................................................................... 28 Results & Discussion ................................................................................................ 29 4.1 TANK Result .................................................................................................... 29 4.2 INFLOW Result ................................................................................................ 35 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 37 Future Work .............................................................................................................. 39 References................................................................................................................. 41

5 6 7

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 56

vii

1 Introduction
The hydropower sector contributes to almost half of the total power production in Sweden (Sandberg, 2009). The remaining part is mainly nuclear and small contributions come from the bioenergy and wind power sectors. The hydropower contribution varies throughout the year peaking in the winter months when subzero temperatures puts high demand on power supply. Further, the contribution varies also from year to year due to the dependence of the amount of rain and melted water collected in the reservoirs. In an average year the hydropower sector produces and of electricity comparable to

for high and low production years respectively. The main features

of a hydropower station are the large reservoir dam where melt water and rain is stored and the turbine/generator assembly which converts the potential energy stored in the water into electricity (Hellstrm, 2009). As production varies throughout the year and the amount of precipitation is uncontrollable the need to control the water head in the reservoir is crucial to obtain optimal working conditions. If the inherent regulation by generation is insufficient, this is achieved by the use of spillways. When spillways are used large quantities of water is unleashed with high potential energy levels which are converted to kinetic energy potentially causing erosion problems to structures in the channel as well as in the old river bed. An effective way to reduce the high kinetic energy levels is to design the spillway channels to trigger a hydraulic jump. The hydraulic jump is a natural occurring phenomenon in flowing fluids characterized by large energy dissipation mechanism and is found not only in manmade structures (Chanson, 2004). In rapids the hydraulic jump can be seen and felt downstream of rocks when cannoning or rafting. Additional features of the hydraulic jump is the sudden transition of shallow and fast moving flow into slow moving flow with rise of the fluid surface. The transition phase is known as the roller where the free surface is highly disturbed and air entrapment occurs.

Modeling of highly disturbed free surface flows such as the hydraulic jump is very complex when grid based method is used. Severe problems with mesh entanglement and determination of the free surface have been encountered. The use of meshfree methods such as the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) method has been shown in previous studies (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010), (Federico, Marrone, Colagrossi, Aristodemo, & Veltri, 2010) to be a good alternative to traditional methods to overcome above stated problems. The SPH-method is a meshfree, adaptive, Lagrangian particle method for modeling fluid flow and as the maturity of method has increased rapidly during the last decade or even years it was chosen as the computational method in this thesis. To reduce the complexity of modeling a three dimensional spillway channel with adherent hydraulic jump a two dimensional model was chosen. Further, two different approaches on how to model the jump have been investigated. The aim for this thesis has been to explore the SPH-methods capabilities to accurately capture the main features of the hydraulic jump and to reproduce findings in previous studies (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010), (Federico, Marrone, Colagrossi, Aristodemo, & Veltri, 2010) in the commercial available software package LSTC LS-DYNA.

2 Theory
The following section contains a description of the governing equation for the fluid flow as well as the fundamentals of the SPH-method. Furthermore, an introduction to the phenomena of hydraulic jump is also presented.

2.1 The Governing Equations

The fundamental equations in fluid dynamics are based upon the following three fundamental physical laws of conservation, Conservation of mass Conservation of momentum Conservation of energy

There are two fundamentally different approaches when describing the above conservation relations, the Eulerian description and Lagrangian description. The most common form, the Eulerian is a spatial description where a finite volume, called a control volume (CV), is defined through which fluid flows in and out. There is no need to track the position and velocity of individual fluid particles, instead a set of field variables are defined at any location and at any time within the C.V., e.g. the pressure field and velocity field variables. The Lagrangian form is a material description where individual fluid particles are followed in space and time. The major difference between the two descriptions is that the Lagrangian form employs the total time derivative as the combination of the local derivative and convective derivative. Physically, the total time derivative could be interpreted as the time rate of change following a moving fluid element. Further, the local time derivative could be interpreted as the time rate of change at a fixed point implying that the flow field property itself might be fluctuating with time. Finally, the convective derivative could be interpreted as the change due to the motion of the fluid element to another location where the flow properties are spatially different. Due to the Lagrangian nature of the SPH-method, all subsequent conservation equations will be defined on Lagrangian form. For further information regarding the conservation 3

equations on Eulerian form the reader is referred to standard textbooks in fluid dynamics such as (Cengel & Cimbala, 2006). For a Lagrangian infinitesimal fluid cell, the continuity equation which is based on the idea of conservation of mass states that the mass is,
( 2.1 )

contained in the control volume

where

is the fluid density. As no mass is able to cross the control volume boundary, i.e.

the mass is conserved, the time rate of mass change is zero implying that
( 2.2 )

Rearranging and simplifying with the velocity divergence, the continuity equation on Lagrangian form is obtained according to
( 2.3 )

The momentum equation is based on conservation of momentum and is represented by Newtons second law, which state that the net force on a fluid element is equal to the mass times the acceleration. The net forces consist of both body forces, i.e. gravity, magnetic, etc., and surfaces forces such as pressure imposed by surrounding fluids and shear and normal stresses which result in shear deformation and volume change. All forces in the x-direction affecting a fluid element and corresponding velocity components are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Forces in x-direction acting on a fluid element and velocity components (Liu & Liu, 2009). Summarizing all components and after some rearrangement and simplifications the momentum equation in , and direction is,

( 2.4 )

where the shear stress viscosity ,

is proportional to the shear strain rate

through the dynamic

( 2.5 )

where,
( 2.6 )

and where

is the Dirac delta function.

The energy equation derived from the conservation of energy states that the time rate of energy change inside a fluid element is equal to the net heat flux into or out of the fluid element and the time rate of work done by the body and surface forces acting on the element. Neglecting the heat flux and the body forces, the time rate of internal energy change consists of the work done by the isotropic pressure multiplying the volumetric strain and the energy dissipation due to viscous shear forces. Hence, the energy equation can be written as,

( 2.7 )

The set of partial differential equations (PDEs) defined above are the well-known NavierStokes equations on Lagrangian form which governs the fluid flow.

2.2 Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics

Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) is a meshfree, adaptive, Lagrangian particle method for modeling fluid flow. The technique was first invented independently by Lucy (Lucy, 1977) and Gingold and Monaghan (Gingold & Monaghan, 1977) in the late seventies to solve astrophysical problems in three-dimensional open space. Movement of astronomical particles resembles the motion of a liquid or a gas, thus it can be modeled by the governing equations of classical Newtonian hydrodynamics. The method did not attract much attention in the research community until the beginning of the 1990 when the method was successfully applied to other areas than astrophysics. Today, the SPHmethod has matured even further and is applied in a wide range of fields such as solid mechanics (e.g. high velocity impact and granular flow problems) and fluid dynamics (e.g. free-surface flows, incompressible and compressible flows).

In the SPH-method, the fluid domain is represented by a set of non-connected particles which possesses individual material properties such as mass, density, velocity, position and pressure (Liu & Liu, 2009). Besides representing the problem domain and acting as information carriers the particles also act as the computational frame for the field function approximations. As the particles move with the fluid the material properties changes over time due to interaction with neighboring particles, hence making the technique a pure adaptive, meshless Lagrangian method. With adaptive is meant that at each time step the field approximation is done based on the local distribution of neighboring particles. The adaptive nature of the SPH-method together with the non-connectivity between the particles results in a method that is able to handle very large deformations which are of the essence when simulating highly disordered free-surface flows such as hydraulic jumps. To further clarify the intricate methodology of the SPH-method, one has to be aware of the basic idea behind any numerical method. This is to reduce the set of partial differential equations governing the problem at hand, see Section 2.1, into a set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in a discretized form with respect to time only. The set of ODEs can then be solved using standard explicit integration routines. The SPH-method employs the following key steps in order to achieve the above, 1. The problem domain is represented by a set of non-connected and preferably structured distribution of particles. 2. The integral representation method is used for field function approximation, known as the kernel approximation. See Section 2.2.1 The Kernel Approximation. 3. The kernel approximation is then further approximated using particles, i.e. the particle approximation. The particle approximation replaces the integral in the kernel approximation by summations over all neighboring particles in the so called support domain. See Section 2.2.2 The Particle Approximation.

4. The summations or the particle approximation are performed at each time step, hence the adaptive nature of the SPH-method as particle position and the magnitude of the individual properties varies with time. 5. The particle approximation is employed to all terms of the field functions and reduces the PDEs to discretized ODEs with respect to time only. 6. The ODEs are solved using standard explicit integration algorithms. As stated in item two above, the fundamental mathematical formulations in SPH are based on integral interpolation theory (Gomez-Gesteira, Rogers, Dalrymple, & Crespo, 2010) and below follows derivation of the kernel- and particle approximation, key features in SPH.

2.2.1 The Kernel Approximation

The derivation of the kernel approximation where an arbitrary field function is represented by the integration of the function multiplied with the so called smoothing kernel function begins with the following identity,
( 2.8 )

where

is the arbitrary function of the three dimensional position vector and is the Dirac delta function given by,

is the

volume containing

( 2.9 )

where particle

is the distance between the particle of evaluation

and any arbitrary

in . The integral representation in eq. ( 2.8 ) is at this stage exact as long as in eq. (

is defined and continuous in . Replacing the Dirac delta function 2.8 ) with the smoothing kernel function yields,

( 2.10 )

where

is the so called smoothing length defining the influence volume of the smoothing

function, see below for greater detail. The integral representation in eq. ( 2.10 ) is the kernel approximation as long as is not the Dirac delta function. A number of different

smoothing functions might be used, but they all should decrease with increasing distances away from the point of evaluation, be an even function, be sufficiently smooth and satisfy the below stated mathematical conditions (Liu & Liu, 2009), The normalization condition,
( 2.11 )

The Delta function property,

( 2.12 )

The positivity condition,

( 2.13 )

The compact condition,

( 2.14 )

where

is a constant defining the effective non-zero area of the smoothing function

called the support domain. The smoothing kernel function used by LS-DYNA and hence used in this thesis is the cubic B-spline defined as,

( 2.15 )

where,
( 2.16 )

and

is the constant of normalization equal to

and

for one-,

two- and three dimensional space respectively. As mentioned above there exists a 9

multitude of different smoothing kernel functions and the choice is thus significant as to which problem are to be solved. Further information regarding the currently available and the construction of smoothing functions the reader is referred to (Liu & Liu, 2009). As stated above the smoothing length defines the influence volume or area of the

smoothing function depended of the dimensionality of the problem to be solved, three and two dimensions respectively. To the authors knowledge most of the present work employs a static smoothing length but LS-DYNA use the concept of variable smoothing length developed by W. Benz in the late 80s in order to avoid problems due to compression and expansion of the material (Lacome, 2001). The key idea is to keep the same number of particles in the neighborhood meaning keeping the same mass of particles in the neighborhood. Thus, in expansion when the particles are moving away from each other the smoothing length is allowed to increase and in compression decrease. If a static smoothing length is employed, numerical fracture can break down the calculations or significantly slow down the overall processes. The derivation of the equation governing the smoothing length begins with recognizing that the total mass particles enclosed in a sphere of radius is,
( 2.17 )

of

Differentiating with regard to time yields,

( 2.18 )

Realizing that in order to conserve mass, the second term on the right hand side must be zero and with some simplification the equations that govern the smoothing length is,
( 2.19 )

where

is the divergence of the velocity hence the smoothing length varies in both

space and time.

10

In order to apply the methodology of the SPH-method the spatial derivative of a function is needed. The integral representation of the spatial derivative function is,
( 2.20 )

of an arbitrary

See (Liu & Liu, 2009) for information regarding the deriving processes in greater detail.

2.2.2 The Particle Approximation

The second key feature in the SPH-method is the particle approximation where the continuous integrals in eq. ( 2.10 ) and eq. ( 2.20 ) are converted to discretized forms of summation over all particles in the support domain, see Figure 2.

Figure 2: The particle approximation of particle (Liu & Liu, 2009). The infinitesimal volume volume of particle , i.e. way,

in the support domain of radius

in eq. ( 2.10 ) and eq. ( 2.20 ) are replaced by the finite which is related to the mass and density in the following

( 2.21 )

Applying the above relationship to eq. ( 2.10 ) and eq. ( 2.20 ) yields,

11

( 2.22 )

where

is the number of particles in the support domain. The particle approximation

equations for a function is,

( 2.23 )

where
( 2.24 )

Equation ( 2.23 ) states that the value of the function at particle is approximated by the function value of all the particles in the support domain weighted by the smoothing kernel function and particle volume. The particle approximation for the spatial derivative is,
( 2.25 )

where
( 2.26 )

Equation ( 2.25 ) states that the value of the gradient of a function at particle

is

approximated by the function value of all the particles in the support domain weighted by the gradient of the smoothing kernel function and particle volume. Applying the above to the Navier-Stokes equations presented in section 2.1 is out of scope for present thesis but the reader is yet again referred to (Liu & Liu, 2009) for indepth knowledge. 12

2.3 Hydraulic Jump

The occurrence of hydraulic jumps is a natural occurring phenomenon in flowing fluids such as water. The main characteristic is the sudden transition of rapid shallow flow to slow moving flow with rise of the fluid surface better known as a transition from supercritical to subcritical flow (Chanson, 2004), see below for more details. Transition between supercritical and subcritical flow are characterized by strong dissipative mechanism which is favorable when high kinetic energy levels is unwanted such as in spillway flows. Further characteristics of hydraulic jumps are the development of the large-scale highly turbulent zone known as the roller where surface waves and spray, energy dissipation and air entrapment is present, see Figure 3. As stated by Chanson (2004) the overall flow field is extremely complicated and varies rapidly hence the bulk features of the hydraulic jump are usually considered only.

Figure 3: Hydraulic jump in flume, flow left to right (Murzyn & Chanson, 2008). Before defining the super- and subcritical flow conditions one must define the critical flow condition. The derivation of the critical flow condition begins with the specific energy which is a function of the flow depth and is defined as,
( 2.27 )

where and

is the pressure at the bottom,

is the depth-averaged velocity, 13

is the elevation

is the bottom elevation. The specific energy is similar to the energy per unit mass,

measured with the channel bottom as reference datum. For a slow moving flow the velocity is small and the depth is large, thus the kinetic energy term is small. For a

rapid flow where the velocity is large and, by continuity the flow depth is small hence the pressure term constant width is small. For a constant discharge and a rectangular channel with

(Chanson, 2004) the critical flow condition is attained when eq. ( 2.27 )

assumes its minimum value i.e.,

( 2.28 )

After transformation of eq. ( 2.28 ) the minimum specific energy

is,
( 2.29 )

where the critical depth

is,
( 2.30 )

Another important parameter in hydraulic applications and in the definition of critical flow conditions is the dimensionless Froude number defined as,
( 2.31 )

where

is the characteristic dimension which for open rectangular channels is the

depth . Further, the Froude number is a non-dimensional parameter for the balance of internal to gravitational (hydrostatic pressure) forces. Froude number is proportional to the square root of the ratio of the internal forces over the weight of the fluid i.e.,
( 2.32 )

In any flow situation where a free-surface is present and thus gravity effects are significant the Froude number must be taken into consideration. When model studies of open channel flows and hydraulic structures are performed one uses the concept of

14

Froude similarity, which states that the Froude number must be equal for both the model and the prototype,
( 2.33 )

Table 1 below summarizes the relevant characteristics of subcritical, critical and supercritical flow in rectangular channels. Table 1: Characteristic of subcritical, critical and supercritical flow in rectangular channels. Subcritical Depth of flow Velocity of flow Froude number The definition of the critical velocity Froude number at critical flow, i.e. is a direct consequence of the definition of the . Critical Supercritical

As will be evident in the Method section below, one of the modeling approaches used encompasses the use of a large reservoir tank with a gate opening to model hydraulic jumps. A relation between the surface height in the tank and the velocity in the supercritical section is easily derived, see Figure 4. Fluid surface Wall boundary

d1

2 a d2

Figure 4: Schematic figure showing depth relation at position one and two. 15

Following a streamline for frictionless, incompressible and steady flow the Bernoulli equation state,
( 2.34 )

where elevation,

the depth-averaged velocity,

the gravitational constant,

is the bottom . For

the free-surface height measured from the bottom, i.e.

the horizontal and frictionless case depicted in the above figure, the Bernoulli equation can be written as,
( 2.35 )

By continuity, the flow

must be the same at position one and two yielding,

( 2.36 )

Substituting eq. ( 2.36 ) into eq. ( 2.35 ) and after some manipulation a relation between the flow and the free-surface heights and can be written as,
( 2.37 )

where,
( 2.38 )

Eq. ( 2.37 ) is a well-known equation in hydraulic engineering and for sufficiently large ratios of the free-surface height at position two can be approximated as,
( 2.39 )

where
( 2.40 )

and

is the gate opening height. Substituting eq. ( 2.38 )-( 2.40 ) into eq. ( 2.37 ) and by in the

the continuity relation eq. ( 2.36 ), an explicit relationship between the velocity

16

supercritical section, the gate opening height tank is obtained as,

and the free-surface height in the reservoir

( 2.41 )

As stated above the hydraulic jump is characterized by a supercritical and a subcritical region where the depths are significantly different. These depths as conjugate depths and can be seen in the schematic Figure 5. Fluid surface Wall boundary and are referred to

Roller

v2

d3 d2

v3

Figure 5: Schematic figure of the hydraulic jump showing the conjugate depths .

and

A dimensionless relation between the conjugate depths can easily be derived from continuity, momentum and energy equations for a rectangular channel. Here is assumed hydrostatic pressure distribution and uniform velocity distribution at the up- and downstream end of the control volume. Further, the friction between the bottom and the fluid is assumed to be zero. With these assumptions the conservations equations yield the dimensionless relation between the conjugate depths for a rectangular channel as,
( 2.42 )

17

where

is the upstream Froude number,

, which by definition must be

greater than one. The upstream Froude number is also used as an indicator of the general characteristics of the jump in a rectangular horizontal channel as different upstream Froude numbers produce different hydraulic jumps. The below table summarizes the different types of hydraulic jumps and the main features observed through experiments, see Table 2. Table 2: Classification of hydraulic jumps (Chanson, 2004). 1 1-1.7 1.7-2.5 2.5-4.5 4.5-9 >9 Type Critical flow Undular jump Weak jump Oscillating jump Steady jump Strong jump Characteristics No hydraulic jump. Free-surface undulations developing downstream of jump, negligible energy loss. Low energy loss. Unstable oscillating jump with large waves of irregular period. To be avoided. Steady jump with 45-70% energy dissipation. Insensitive to downstream condition and is considered as Best economical design. Rough jump with up to 85% energy dissipation. To be avoided due to the risk of channel bed erosion.

As stated by Chanson, the above classification of hydraulic jump is considered as rough guidelines only as other researcher have produced for instance undular hydraulic jump with Froude number as high as three. The Froude number is analogous to the Mach number in compressible gas flows, defined as the ratio of the speed of flow and the sound speed of the medium. Further, supercritical and subcritical flow is comparable to supersonic and subsonic where information is unable to travel upstream in the super-sonic/critical case and able to travel upstream in the other case. One might also compare the hydraulic jump with the shockwave as both are recognized as strong energy dissipaters (Kundu, 1990).

18

3 Method
The commercial available software LSTC LS-DYNA version ls971d R5.0 where used on an HP Z600 with eight cores in order perform the simulation of two dimensional (2D) hydraulic jumps. LS-DYNA is perhaps better known for the capabilities to solve complex solid mechanic problems such as crash test simulation in the automotive industry, but the capabilities reach even further to highly nonlinear and explicit multi-physical problems (Hallquist, 2006). The implementation of the SPH-solver has made the LS-DYNA package one of the few commercial software packages available at the market today. To the authors knowledge most of todays researcher in the SPH community uses highly experimental codes developed for research only. However, some attempts have been made in order to converge the research to one or two codes such as the SPH-FLOW developed by a consortium composed of industry and academic partners and the freely available SPHysics code developed jointly by universities in the U.S. and Europe. The developments of the SPH-method have also been encouraged by the ERCOFTAC Special Interest Group SPHERIC. Previous studies has shown that the SPH-method is well suited to simulate hydraulic jumps (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010), (Federico, Marrone, Colagrossi, Aristodemo, & Veltri, 2010). Both works were done using in-house research codes not available on the open market and to the authors knowledge no work on hydraulic jumps has been conducted using the LS-DYNA SPH-solver. Thus, the work conducted during this thesis has been of trial-and-error character. However, there are some work done using the LSDYNA SPH-solver to model water such as the modeling of fuel sloshing in a tank (Vesenjak, Mllerschn, Hummel, & Ren, 2004) and modeling of bird-substitute impacting on a rotating fan (Selezneva, Stone, Moffat, Behdinan, & Poon, 2010). To begin with, the LS-DYNA SPH-solver uses the concept of a computational box (LSTC, 2010). Which is a box shaped volume defined in three dimensional space where particles inside is activated, i.e. the particle approximation are computed for each particle 19

at each time step. When a particle is outside the computational box it is deactivated implying that no computation is done which saves both time and computational effort. Further, as the particle crosses the boundary of the box field variables are conserved meaning that particles follow the exit trajectories with maintained velocities. To define the box in LS-DYNA one uses the DEFINE_BOX k-word or if one requires a moving box the DEFINE_BOX_SPH k-word. The computational box is a vital tool when performing SPH computations as stated above, however some issues concerning the box have been encountered as explained below. Another key feature is the modeling of the gravitational field, , done by

the LOAD_BODY_Y k-word. As will be evident further below one of the two modeling approaches used is primarily gravitational driven. Below follows the boundary condition and the most significant k-words used together with the two conceptually different modeling approaches used to model the hydraulic jump.

3.1 Boundary Condition

In the field of fluid dynamics boundary conditions such as inlets, outlets and walls are standard features, one might even claim that they are mandatory in order to perform Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulations successfully. As the implementation in LS-DYNA of the SPH-method is in its early stages, rather few boundary conditions is currently implemented and working properly.

3.1.1 Inlet Boundary Condition

The inlet boundary condition is implemented and is applied by using the BOUNDARY_SPH_FLOW k-word. Initially, the user defines all particles representing the inflow and has the ability to choose whether the particles move according to a prescribed velocity, displacement or acceleration (LSTC, 2010). At time , all

particles are deactivated in a similar fashion as particles outside the computational box but move according to the prescribed motion defined. The boundary of activation where 20

the SPH-particles are activated and the particle approximation is computed is defined by a predefined node and a vector. The ability of the BOUNDARY_SPH_FLOW k-word is promising but it is unfortunately not working properly as two distinct problems arose during the simulations. Firstly, deactivated particles were affected by gravity outside the boundary of activation and the computational box which resulted in unwanted vertical motion. Secondly, random particles outside the boundary of activation which were supposed to move according to the prescribed motion remained stationary in initial positions which resulted in a discontinuous inflow of particles. The first problem where resolved by the support office at the Nordic official distributor of LS-DYNA, Engineering Research AB (ERAB). The update was implemented in the development version of LSDYNA which the author was able to try but the second problem still remained. Efforts to get around the problems experienced by using the BOUNDARY_SPH_FLOW k-word were conducted by applying the BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET together with the DEFINE_DEATH_TIMES_SET k-words. The

BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET k-word has similar capabilities as the BOUNDARY_SPH_FLOW k-word but with the drawback that the termination of the prescribed motion of the particles/nodes are controlled by the complimentary k-word DEFINE_DEATH_TIMES_SET. Yet again, problem arose during the simulations due to gravitational effects on constrained nodes outside the computational box with the unwanted result of vertical displacement. One remedy proposed to solve the issue of gravity effects on constrained nodes were to including yet another

PRESCRIBED_MOTION k-word defined to counteract the effects of gravity by applying a prescribed acceleration equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the gravity itself. Unfortunately, this idea cut short as the DEATH_TIMES k-word is able to terminate one prescribed motion only. The addition of another DEATH_TIMES k-word might be seen as a possible remedy but only one DEATH_TIMES k-word is acceptable in order to perform simulations successfully.

21

3.1.2 Outlet Boundary Condition

No particular outlet boundary condition is currently implemented in LS-DYNA. However, a crude version of an outlet has been applied in this thesis namely the boundary of the computational box. As mentioned above each particle crossing the boundary of the box conserves the field variables and follows the exit trajectories with maintained velocities in a deactivated state. The shortcomings are evident as the user has no control of which information from downstream particles are affecting upstream particles.

3.1.3 Wall Boundary Condition

The wall boundary condition is used to model solid walls where fluid penetration is prohibited. In traditional CFD modeling a multitude of different additional condition is applicable such as free-slip and no-slip conditions where fluid particles have a finite and zero velocity relative to the boundary respectively. Such conditions are currently available in experimental codes only. The most common and accepted method in the SPH community is to model solid walls as stationary SPH-particles locked in space and time. Three distinct boundary particles have been proposed; the Ghost particle, Repulsive particle and the Dynamic particle all with special features on how to treat effects at or close to the boundary. As the theory of these particles is out of scope for this thesis see (Gomez-Gesteira, Rogers, Dalrymple, & Crespo, 2010) or (Liu & Liu, 2009) for greater details. SPH-particles locked in space and time with the same material properties and features as the freely flowing fluid has been used in this thesis as no specially treated boundary particles are available in LS-DYNA. Furthermore, wall particles have been modeled with half the interparticle distance in both x- and y-direction as the free flowing fluid,
( 3.1 )

Initialy, both fluid and wall particles where generated with the builtin particle generator in LSPrePost 3.1 but later in MathWorks MatLab for increased controll and faster setup time as wall particles are modeled in three layers, a combersome and teadious task in the builtin particle generator, see Figure 6. See Appendix B for MatLab script. 22

Figure 6: Fluid (blue) and wall (red) particles. Questions regarding the smoothness of the wall boundaries when SPH-particles are used have been raised. The RIGIDWALL_PLANAR_FINITE k-word were proposed as a remedy but showed at an early stage problem with both unstable and unphysical solutions. A new contact algorithm CONTACT_2D_NODE_TO_SOLID have been implemented in the development version of LS-DYNA which control contact between SPH-nodes and solids or shell elements composed of a traditional mesh. Due to lack of time, no work has been conducted with the new contact algorithm even though it seems as a promising alternative.

3.2 Material Modeling

Previous studies (Vesenjak, Mllerschn, Hummel, & Ren, 2004), (Huertas-Ortecho, 2006), (Varas, Zaera, & Lpez-Puente, 2009) showed that the material model MAT_009_NULL have been used to model water with density dynamic viscosity and

. The null material has no shear stiffness or yield is

strength and behaves in a fluid-like manner (LSTC, 2010). As the dynamic viscosity nonzero, a deviatoric viscous stress of the form,
( 3.2 )

is computed where

is the deviatoric strain rate. Furthermore, the null material must

also be used together with an equation of state (EOS) defining the pressure in the material. Varas et al. (2009) used the Gruneisen equation of state which employs the 23

cubic shock velocity-particle velocity and defines the pressure for compressed materials as,

( 3.3 )

and for expanded materials,

( 3.4 )

where

and

are coefficients of the slope of the

curve,

and

being

the shock and particle velocity respectively.

is the intercept of the curve which the Gruneisen gamma and is

corresponds to the adiabatic speed of sound of water. the first volume correction to .

the initial internal energy and

where

is the initial density. Properties and constant given by (Boyd, Royles, & El-Deed, 2000) are summarized below in Table 3. Table 3: Water properties and constants for the Gruneisen equation of state. Property Value As very low time steps and thus large overall computational time was experienced with the NULL material model the much faster and simpler Drcker-Prager based material model MAT_005_SOIL_AND_FOAM used by (Gustafsson, Cante, Jonsn, Weyler, & Hggblad, 2009) were proposed. Even though Gustafsson et al. (2009) employed the material model successfully it was discarded due to severe penetration issues at the boundaries. As described above the hydraulic jump phenomenon includes air entrapment in the roller region as one of the significant features. However, no simulations incorporating the air as

24

a second phase have been conducted due to the increased complexity of multiphase modeling.

3.3 Modeling Approaches

Two conceptually different modeling approaches, the Tank and Inflow approach have been used in this thesis. The main difference between the two approaches is the modeling of a large reservoir tank which by definition is less efficient as the movement of a huge number of particles in the reservoir is computed, which for present work, is of less importance.

3.3.1 TANK Method

The Tank approach is based on the work done by (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010) whom with an in-house research code conducted SPH simulations on a set of hydraulic jumps with different upstream Froude numbers. They also conducted a physical experiment on a downscaled setup, fifty times smaller than the numerical, for validation purposes. The main features of the simulation setup is the modeling of a large reservoir tank initially filled with water which discharges through a gate opening onto a horizontal bed with an attached weir close to the outlet, see schematic in Figure 7 below.
Fluid surface Wall boundary

Gate Tank Roller

Bed

Weir

Figure 7: Schematic figure of the TANK-simulation setup. The scale and hence the measurements used in this thesis were chosen to represent the physical experiment and are summarized in Table 4 below.

25

Table 4: TANK-simulation measurements. Measurement Initial tank height Tank width Gate opening Bed length Weir height Weir width Length [m] 0.2 1.2 0.02 1.1 0.02 0.2 in

To achieve Froude similarity, the simulation time was multiplied by a factor of

order to compare numerical results. Hence, the simulation time in this thesis was just below three seconds. The weir assembly close to the outlet was used to trigger the onset of the hydraulic jump, a widely used feature in spillway channels. To trigger the hydraulic jump even faster the bed region were initially filled with water to a depth equal to the weir height, i.e. The initial interparticle distance in the free fluid was set to and . in the

wall boundaries. The above measurements and interparticle distances yielded a total of particles with a mass of each.

Initial simulation runs indicated problems with severe pressure fluctuations and freesurface oscillation in the reservoir tank when full gravitational acceleration was applied instantaneous at time . To reduce the unwanted oscillations, gravitational load was to full gravitational load at . The use of

continuously increased from zero at

a movable gate which opened when full gravitational load were achieved with the opening speed of eliminated the unphysical effects of reduced gravity. See

Appendix A for how this was implemented. No currently accepted or widely used method to determine the fluid surface has yet been proposed. Hence the post processing method has been conducted using average depths values of particle centers close to the assumed free surface and point of interest. The procedure to determine the velocity in the flow has been conducted in a similar manner 26

with the alteration that all particles from the bottom to the surface and close to the point of interest have been used, see Figure 8.

Figure 8: Particles included in the depth (left) and velocity (right) determination are shown in red.

27

3.3.2 INFLOW Method

The inflow approach is based on the work done by (Federico, Marrone, Colagrossi, Aristodemo, & Veltri, 2010) who proposed a new algorithm for in- and outflow conditions and showed its applicability to different types of hydraulic jumps. The simulation setup composed of an inlet through which water discharged onto a horizontal bed and continued to flow until it reached the outlet. Federico et al. (2010) concluded that the use of a weir was unnecessary as the triggering of a hydraulic jump could be done by initially position the SPH-nodes in two domains with depths based on the conjugate depths theory and assigning appropriate velocities in the bed region. To trigger the onset faster the author proposed the bed region to be divided further into three domains, see Figure 9 below.
Fluid surface Wall boundary

O I N L E T U T L E T

Figure 9: Schematic figure of the INFLOW-simulation setup. As the implementation of the inlet boundary condition in LS-DYNA is at this stage not working properly less effort has been put into this method. However, one successful run was obtained. See Appendix A for reduced k-word input file.

28

4 Results & Discussion

In this section the main results of present study together with comparison with previous studies will be presented. As previously stated the work was run as a numerical experiment thus several simulations runs were conducted and only the final runs will be presented.

4.1 TANK Result

The Tank simulation results are presented with figures showing the hydraulic jump in the bed region at successive time steps and simulation data such as the depths in the super/subcritical sections. Figure 10 below shows the hydraulic jump at time steps indicated in the upper left corner following the time steps used by Lpez et al. (2010) with an added second to account for the time until full gravitational load was obtained. Different colors indicate different velocities in the positive x-direction measured in Subsequent to opening the gate at .

a fast moving jet shoots out of the gate opening

into the initially stationary fluid in the bed region. A wave forms and breaks as the fluid starts to move together with the jet in the positive x-direction and the moving hydraulic jump starts to form. The highly turbulent and disturbed roller region moves further towards the weir and outlet section with decreased velocity as time proceeds. The tendencies for the jump section to decelerate indicates that a quasi-stationary state might be attained as time proceeds further but as no simulations were run past four seconds no such state were ever assumed. One can argue that a quasi-stationary state do not exist for the present configuration as the tank height decreases over time causing the velocity in the supercritical section to decline enabling the roller and subcritical section to move upstream.

29

Figure 10: Visualization of the tank simulation at successive time steps with color coded velocities in the positive x-direction. 30

The overall result of the simulations is that the capability of the SPH-method to capture the main structures in the flow field, namely the formation of a shallow and fast moving jet and its transition into a deeper and slow moving section is demonstrated. However, some shortcomings were detected such as the over prediction of pressure by a factor of ten at the bottom in the tank section. This needs to be further investigated. Furthermore, the use of the boundary of the computational box as an outlet might influence the outcome of the simulation adversely as can be seen in Figure 10 for time step and . The flow seems at both time steps to accelerate and reduce in depth

which is unrealistic but most certainly depend on the lack of a outlet boundary condition. The use of SPH-nodes proved to be the most successful way to model solid walls. However, issues of wall smoothness and the effects on flow properties have been raised as mentioned above. Another drawback with the SPH-method is the overall computational time which for the present result was almost hours.

To be able to compare and validate the numerical results with theory and previous work a number of parameters were derived, see Table 5. Table 5: Simulation results using the TANK method.

1.707 2.414 3.121 3.828

0.174 0.165 0.155 0.146

0.0118 0.0112 0.0110 0.0110

1.606 1.499 1.489 1.365

0.055 0.053 0.066 0.064

The explicit relationship eq. ( 2.41 ) derived in the theory section state that knowing the reservoir tank height and the gate opening height , the velocity in the

supercritical section is easily determined. Based on above results the theoretically velocity were then compared to the value obtained from the simulation , see

Table 6. Furthermore, the conjugate depths relation eq. ( 2.42 ) and the Froude number definition eq. ( 2.31 ), also derived in the theory section states that knowing the velocity and the depth in the supercritical section the upstream Froude number 31

and the depth theoretical depth

is easily determined. Based on the results presented in Table 5 the was then compared with the depth obtained from the

simulation, see Table 6. Knowing the Froude number one is able to determine which type of jump is present, see Table 2. Table 6: Comparison of simulation and theoretical results using the TANK method.

1.707 2.414 3.121 3.828

1.788 1.734 1.679 1.628

4.729 4.519 4.541 4.153

0.073 0.066 0.065 0.059

-10.2 -13.5 -11.3 -16.2

-25.0 -20.6 1.6 8.3

The upstream Froude number shows that a hydraulic jump classified as a steady jump is produced for the first three time steps and an oscillating jump for the final time step. The velocity comparison shows a systematic under prediction of the velocity and when compared with the unphysical over prediction of pressure seen in the reservoir tank the result is ambiguous. Two possible explanations to this behavior are given. Firstly, the pressure is correct indicating a higher particle mass than specified is used during computations yielding too much resistance thus lowering the velocity. Secondly, the pressure is incorrectly presented during post-processing thus a lower pressure is used during computations yielding the lower velocity. As stated above, the over prediction of pressure and its effect on overall results should be investigated further. Comparison of the depth indicate large differences for the first two time steps and almost non for the

second two. This randomness might be explained with the relatively inaccurate method used to determine the position of the free-surface presented in the method section. However, the under prediction for the first two time step might indicate that the hydraulic jump is not fully developed at the concerned time steps. Comparison of numerical results from the present study and numerical results obtained by Lpez et al. (2010) are summarized in Table 7 below.

32

Table 7: Comparison of numerical results for present study and numerical results obtained by (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010).

1.707 2.414 3.121 3.828

-4.2 -7.5 -8.8 -2.4

-30.9 -34.8 -29.7 -27.6

8.1 1.9 5.5 3.77

-8.9 -31.1 -8.1 -4.0 in the

The above data shows good agreement for all parameters except for the depth supercritical section and the second time step for the depth The large deviation for depth

in the subcritical section.

at the second time step might be explained as above by could in the authors opinion not be explained by the

the method used to determine the free-surface. However, the relative large and systematic under prediction of the depth

inherent arbitrariness of the method used. No distinct explanation to why this relative large under prediction occurs is at this stage known. However, by realizing that continuity must be maintained in the supercritical section one can argue that the results presented in this thesis more accurately represent the problem due to the larger under prediction of the depth compared to the relative small over prediction of the velocity . The differences shown in the above table not only indicate the importance of choosing the appropriate number of particles representing the problem but also that the number of particles chosen most certainly affect the outcome as roughly seven times more particles were used in this thesis compared to the previous work. Furthermore, the differences found motivate a particle study investigating the effects of varied number of particles as a future work effort. Comparison of numerical results for the present study and experimental results obtained by Lpez et al. (2010) are summarized in Table 8 below.

33

Table 8: Comparison of numerical results for present study and experimental results obtained by (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010).

1.707 2.414 3.121 3.828

-1.8 -6.7 -7.6 3.1

-18.9 -32.5 -17.9 -6.3 is shown but only moderate to poor for

Good agreement for the reservoir tank depth the depth

in the subcritical section. However, as no method was presented in (Lpez,

Marivela, & Garrote, 2010) of how experimental data was obtained and the arbitrary method used in this thesis, less significance is dedicated to the under prediction of the depth .

34

4.2 INFLOW Result

The Inflow results will be presented with figures showing the hydraulic jump at successive time steps only. No comparison with previous studies will be presented due to the randomness of the error experienced when using the inlet condition as previously stated. However, the results show a very effective and inexpensive way to model hydraulic jumps hence the author have chosen to include the results even though no comparison or validation have been done. Figure 11 below shows the hydraulic jump at time steps indicated in the upper left corner with color coded velocities in the x-direction measured in . At time (red) , the initial velocities in the domain were chosen as (yellow) and (blue) which are

based on theoretical assumptions presented in the theory section. At the inlet the velocity constraint is terminated and the particle approximation is and moves with

computed. The hydraulic jump initiates almost instantaneous at

very low velocity in the negative x-direction indicating the onset of a quasi-stationary state. Just as in the Tank simulation the use of the boundary of the computational box adversely affect the flow close to the outlet at . As no simulation were run

passed one second the effects might have worsen or even destroyed the hydraulic jump thus the results are non-trustworthy.

35

Figure 11: Visualization of the inflow simulation at successive time steps with color coded velocities in the x-direction. 36

5 Conclusion
The present study has shown that the SPH-method is able to capture the main structures of the hydraulic jump flow field. Successful outcomes were achieved with the Tank approach but not for the Inflow case due to difficulties with the implementation of the inlet boundary condition used. However, the Inflow approach were more efficient as the number of activated particle at any given time step were less compared to the Tank approach implying less computational cost. Both approaches suffered from the use of the boundary of the computational box as outlet condition especially the Inflow case. The commonly used and accepted method to model wall boundaries as stationary SPH-nodes worked very well when the interparticle distance were half compared to the free flowing fluid. However, the use of SPH-nodes as walls imply wall smoothness issues not addressed in present thesis. Comparisons of numerical results with theoretically derived values for the Tank case showed a systematic under prediction of the velocity in the supercritical section which

is an ambiguous result when compared with the over prediction of the pressure in the reservoir tank. Furthermore, comparison of the theoretically derived depth in the

subcritical section showed when compared with the numerical results a large under estimation for the first two time steps. The conclusion is that the hydraulic jump is not fully developed at the mentioned time step as the error continuously decreased with time. Comparison of simulation result with the previous work showed generally under estimation, especially for the depth . However, the velocity showed an

over prediction by roughly five percent. The conclusion is that the number of particles used to represent the system influence the outcomes as roughly seven times more particles were used in this thesis compared to the previous work. Finally, the comparison of present numerical results with experimental results from the work by Lpez et al. (2010) showed good agreement for the tank depth in the subcritical section. 37 but only moderate for the depth

As concluded earlier in (Lpez, Marivela, & Garrote, 2010) and (Federico, Marrone, Colagrossi, Aristodemo, & Veltri, 2010), the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic method is a viable tool when performing free-surface flow and particularly hydraulic jump simulations, but the maturity of the implementation of the SPH-method in the commercial software LS-DYNA is at this stage insufficient. However, recent developments indicate that problems experienced in this work might be solved in future releases of the software.

38

6 Future Work
There are numerous areas in which future work efforts could be directed. The first issue to be solved is the pressure in the reservoir tank which was over predicted by a factor of ten. As mentioned in the result section plausible errors might have been inferred in the particle generating script which should undergo careful scrutiny. The Gruneisen equationof-state determining the pressure in the material might contain inaccuracies as well and should be investigated thoroughly. Another area of interest dealing with pressure is the possibility to assign a hydrostatic pressure distribution in the fluid which might reduce the sever pressure oscillations when full gravitational load is applied instantaneous. If this approach should work the use of both the continuously increasing gravity and the movable gate is obsolete saving computational time. The influences of particle distribution and the number of particle representing the problem have not been thoroughly explored and is one of the strong candidates for future work efforts. A particle study investigating the effects of particle size and hence wall smoothness has been proposed. The wall smoothness influences the overall energy losses in the fluid affecting the outcome of the simulations. A particle study might reveal convergence or divergence tendencies as the level of discretization is varied. In traditional CFD, grid independent solutions are attained through the use of Richardson extrapolation which might be possible to implement in the SPH-community as well introducing the concept of particle independent solutions. The newly implemented k-word CONTACT_2D_NODE_TO_SOLID should be thoroughly investigated as it yields perfectly smooth wall boundaries. The outcome of present study was seriously affected by the method used to determine the position of the free-surface which is another interesting area of future work. As discrete particles is used to represent the system the approach to determine the surface might best be done be applying statistical measurements. Another approach is to borrow ideas from the established multiphase flow techniques using traditional grids such as the Volume Of 39

Fluid (VOF) or Level Set (LS) methods. Already established methods might also give insights of how to model an extra phase such as air. Additional future work possibilities are to conduct a physical experiment in order to better validate the simulations. The use of Particle Imaging Velocimetry (PIV) or Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) might give insights to the inner flow field of the hydraulic jump a subject not addressed here. A study exploring the inner flow field would be most beneficial. The authors future research work will be focused on solving the issue of the over predicted pressure and perform the particle study state above.

40

7 References
Boyd, R., Royles, R., & El-Deed, K. M. (2000). Simulation and Validation of UNDEX Phenomena Relating to Axisymmetric Structures. Sixth International LS-DYNA Users Conference Simulation, (pp. 15-36). Dearborn, Michigan. Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2006). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chanson, H. (2004). The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Federico, I., Marrone, S., Colagrossi, A., Aristodemo, F., & Veltri, P. (2010). Simulation of hydraulic jump through sph model. IDRA XXXII Italian Conference of Hydraulics and Hydraulic Construction. Palermo, Italy. Gingold, R. A., & Monaghan, J. J. (1977). Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly Notices of the Poyal Astronomical Society, 181, 375-389. Gomez-Gesteira, M., Rogers, B. D., Dalrymple, R. A., & Crespo, A. J. (2010). State-ofthe-art of classical SPH for free-surface flows. Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48 Extra Issue, 6-27. Gustafsson, G., Cante, J. C., Jonsn, P., Weyler, R., & Hggblad, H.-. (2009). Comparison of Smoothed Particle Method and Particle Finite Element Method in Applied Granular Flow Problems. International Conference on Particle-Based Methods - Particles 2009. Barcelona: CIMNE. Hallquist, J. O. (2006). LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. Hellstrm, G. I. (2009). Internal Erosion in Embankment Dams - Fluid Flow Through and Deformation of Porous Media. Lule: Lule University of Technology. Huertas-Ortecho, C. A. (2006). Robust Bird-Strike Modeling Using LS-DYNA. Master Thesis. Mayagez, Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico Mayagez Campus. Kundu, P. K. (1990). Fluid Mechanics. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. 41

Lacome, J. L. (2001, November 27). Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics - Part II. FEA Information International News For The World-Wide Engineering Community, pp. 6-11. Liu, G. R., & Liu, M. B. (2009). Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics : a meshfree particle method. Singapore: World Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Lpez, D., Marivela, R., & Garrote, L. (2010). Smoothed particle hydrodynamics model applied to hydraulic structure: a hydraulic jump test case. Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 48Extra Issue, 142-158. LSTC. (2010). LS-DYNA Keyword Users Manual Version 971 Rev 5. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC). Lucy, L. B. (1977). A numerical approach to testing of the fission hypothesis. The Astronomical Journal, 1013-1024. Murzyn, F., & Chanson, H. (2008). Experimental investigation of bubbly flow and turbulence in hydraulic jumps. Enviromental Fluid Mechanics Vol. 9 Iss. 2, 143159. Sandberg, E. (2009, June 3). Svensk energi. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.svenskenergi.se/sv/Om-el/Elproduktion/ Selezneva, M., Stone, P., Moffat, T., Behdinan, K., & Poon, C. (2010). Modeling Bird Impact on Rotating Fan: The Influence of Bird Parameters. 11th International LS-DYNA User Conference (pp. 37-46). Dearborn, Michigan USA: LSTC. Varas, D., Zaera, R., & Lpez-Puente, J. (2009). Numerical modeling of hydrodynamic ram phenomenon. International Journal of impact Engineering 36, 363-374. Vesenjak, M., Mllerschn, H., Hummel, A., & Ren, Z. (2004). Simulation of Fuel Sloshing Comperative Study. LS-DYNA Anwenderforum. Bamberg:

DYNAmore GmgH.

42

Appendix A
Reduced input k-word file TANK-method.
$# LS-DYNA Keyword file created by LS-PrePost 3.1 (Beta) 14Sep2010(17:24) $# Created on Dec-5-2010 (13:38:06) *KEYWORD *TITLE $# title LS-DYNA keyword deck by LS-PrePost *CONTROL_SPH $# start 1 $# 0 $# endtim cont 0 endcyc 0 tssfac 0.900000 0 dt2msf dt2mslc 0 dt ioopt lcdt 0 0 beam 0 npltc 0 psetid 0 imscl ncbs maxv 11.0000E+20 deriv 0 dtmin 0.000 isdo 0 0 endeng 0.000 endmas 0.000 dt2ms 0.000 lctm 0 2 iact 100 5 boxid dt idim memory form

0.0001.0000E+15

*CONTROL_TERMINATION 4.000000 *CONTROL_TIMESTEP $# dtinit ms1st 0.000 tslimt erode 4.0000E-6 0 $# 0.000 $# 0.001000 $# 0

*DATABASE_BINARY_D3PLOT

43

*DATABASE_HISTORY_SPH_SET $# id7 1 0 *DEFINE_BOX_TITLE BOX for pkt $# zmx 1 -0.010000 cord_sys $# zl 1 $# 0.000 0.000 xp 1.000000 0.000 yp 0.000 0.000 zp 1.000000 0.000 0.000 cid xo yo zo xl yl 2.502000 -0.050000 2.000000 -0.200000 0.200000 *DEFINE_COORDINATE_SYSTEM_TITLE boxid xmn xmx ymn ymx zmn id1 id8 2 0 0 0 0 0 id2 id3 id4 id5 id6

*DEFINE_CURVE_TITLE Gravity curve 2 $# dattyp 4 $# 0.000 1.0000000 100.0000000 *DEFINE_CURVE_TITLE DISP curve gate $# dattyp 5 $# 0.000 0 1.000000 a1 0.000 1.000000 0.000 o1 0.000 0 lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo 0 1.000000 a1 0.000 9.8100004 9.8100004 1.000000 0.000 o1 0.000 0 lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo

44

1.0000000 1.0190001 5.0000000 *ELEMENT_SPH $# $# heading 1Moving gate $# death 3 0.000 *BOUNDARY_SPC_SET_ID $# heading 1Walls $# dofry 1 1 nsid dofrz 1 1 cid nsid birth 2 2 dof nid pid

0.000 0.0190000 0.0190000 mass id

*BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET_ID

vad 5

lcid 1.000000

sf

vid 01.0000E+28

id

dofx 1

dofy 1

dofz 1

dofrx 1

*SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE Walls $# 1 $# b4beg 1 0 *BOUNDARY_SPC_SET_ID $# heading 2W1 id sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 9129 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver

45

$# dofry 2 0

nsid dofrz 1

cid 0

dofx 0

dofy 1

dofz 0

dofrx 0

*SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE W1 $# 2 $# b4beg 9130 0 *EOS_GRUNEISEN_TITLE EOS water 2 $# a 3.0720E+5 $# 1.000000 *LOAD_BODY_Y $# cid 4 1.000000 2 ro pc mu 0.000 terod 0.000 cerod 0.000 pr 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 *MAT_NULL_TITLE water NULL $# ym 0.000 *NODE $# rc nid x y z tc mid lcid sf lciddr xc yc zc v0 eosid e0 1.979000 0.000 0.000 0.110000 3.000000 c s1 s2 s3 gamao sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 74509 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver

2 1484.0000

2 1000.0000 -1.000E+6 8.9000E-4

46

*PART $# title WALLS $# adpopt 1 0 *SECTION_SPH_TITLE WALLS $# start 1 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.0001.0000E+20 0.000 *PART $# title WATER $# adpopt 2 0 *SECTION_SPH_TITLE WATER $# start 2 1.200000 0.950000 4.000000 0.0001.0000E+20 0.000 *SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE GATE $# 3 $# b4beg 7696 0 *END sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 8475 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver secid cslh hmin hmax sphini death 2 pid tmid 2 2 0 0 0 secid mid eosid hgid grav secid cslh hmin hmax sphini death 1 pid tmid 2 2 0 0 0 secid mid eosid hgid grav

47

*COMPONENT $# 1 0 $# name Part 1 *COMPONENT_PART $# 1 $# 2 pid 1 pid 1 clid clid clid 0.769000 color1 0.004000 color2 0.110000 color3 0.000 color4 0 0

*COMPONENT_END

48

Reduced input k-word file INFLOW-method.

$# LS-DYNA Keyword file created by LS-PrePost 3.1 (Beta) 14Sep2010(17:24) $# Created on Nov-5-2010 (13:52:33) *KEYWORD *TITLE $# title LS-DYNA keyword deck by LS-PrePost *CONTROL_SPH $# start 1 $# 0 $# endtim cont 0 endcyc 0 tssfac 0.800000 0 dt2msf dt2mslc 0 dt ioopt lcdt 0 0 beam 0 npltc 0 psetid 0 imscl ncbs maxv 11.0000E+20 deriv 0 dtmin 0.000 isdo 0 0 endeng 0.000 endmas 0.000 dt2ms 0.000 lctm 0 2 iact 1000 5 boxid dt idim memory form

0.0001.0000E+15

*CONTROL_TERMINATION 2.000000 *CONTROL_TIMESTEP $# dtinit ms1st 0.000 tslimt erode 4.0000E-6 0 $# 0.000 $# 0.001000 $# 0 *DATABASE_HISTORY_SPH_SET $# id7 id1 id8 id2 id3 id4 id5 id6

*DATABASE_BINARY_D3PLOT

49

1 0

*ELEMENT_SPH $# $# heading 1WATER $# dofry 1 0 *SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE WATER $# 1 $# b4beg 1 0 *BOUNDARY_SPC_SET_ID $# heading 2WALLS $# dofry 2 1 *SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE WALLS $# 2 sid 0.000 da1 0.000 da2 0.000 da3 0.000MECH da4 solver nsid dofrz 1 1 1 1 1 1 cid dofx dofy dofz dofrx id sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 30300 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver nsid dofrz 1 0 0 1 0 0 cid dofx dofy dofz dofrx nid pid mass id *BOUNDARY_SPC_SET_ID

50

$# b4beg 30301 0

b1beg b4end 33303

b1end 0

b2beg 0

b2end 0

b3beg 0

b3end 0

*BOUNDARY_SPH_FLOW $# death 5 0.000 $# 30301 EOS water $# a 0.000 $# 0.000 *INITIAL_VELOCITY $# 4 $# 0.930274 *LOAD_BODY_Y $# cid 1 $# rc *PART $# title 1.000000 nid 0 x 0.000 0.000 y 0.000 z 1 tc *NODE lcid sf lciddr xc yc zc vx 0.000 nsid 0 vy nsidex 1 vz 0.000 boxid 0 vxr 0.000 vyr 0.000 vzr 0.000 irigid v0 eosid e0 2.560000 1.986000 1.226800 0.500000 0.000 c s1 s2 s3 gamao nid 2 vid id birth 3 4 2 3 1.0000001.0000E+20 styp dof vad lcid sf

*EOS_GRUNEISEN_TITLE

1 1480.0000

51

SphNode $# adpopt 1 0 *SECTION_SPH_TITLE PKT $# start 1 1.300000 1.000000 5.000000 0.0001.0000E+20 0.000 *MAT_NULL_TITLE water NULL $# ym 0.000 *PART $# title SphNode $# adpopt 2 0 *SECTION_SPH_TITLE PKT $# start 2 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.0001.0000E+20 0.000 *SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE Water 1 $# 3 sid 0.000 da1 0.000 da2 0.000 da3 0.000MECH da4 solver secid cslh hmin hmax sphini death 2 pid tmid 1 1 0 0 0 secid mid eosid hgid grav mid pr 0.001000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ro pc mu terod cerod secid cslh hmin hmax sphini death 1 pid tmid 1 1 0 0 0 secid mid eosid hgid grav

1 1000.0000 -1.000E+6

52

$# b4beg 1 0

b1beg b4end 4375

b1end 0

b2beg 0

b2end 0

b3beg 0

b3end 0

*SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE Water 2 $# 4 $# b4beg 4376 0 *SET_NODE_LIST_GENERATE_TITLE Water 3 $# 5 $# b4beg 15101 0 *DEFINE_BOX_TITLE BOX for pkt $# zmx 1 0.000 2.000000 -0.050000 2.000000 -0.200000 0.200000 *DEFINE_COORDINATE_SYSTEM_TITLE cord_sys $# zl 1 $# 0.000 0.000 xp 1.000000 0.000 yp 0.000 0.000 zp 1.000000 0.000 0.000 cid xo yo zo xl yl boxid xmn xmx ymn ymx zmn sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 30300 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver sid 0.000 b1beg b4end 15100 0 0 0 0 0 da1 0.000 b1end da2 0.000 b2beg da3 0.000MECH b2end b3beg b3end da4 solver

*DEFINE_CURVE_TITLE

53

Gravity curve $# dattyp 1 $# 0.000 1000.0000000 *DEFINE_CURVE_TITLE Motion curve $# dattyp 2 $# 0.000 10.0000000 *DEFINE_CURVE_TITLE Disp curve $# dattyp 3 $# 0.000 10.0000000 *DEFINE_VECTOR_TITLE vector sph-flow $# zh 1 *DEFINE_VECTOR_TITLE vector inflow x_dir $# zh vid cid xt yt zt xh yh vid cid 0.126000 0.000 0.000 0.126000 0.000 xt yt zt xh yh 0 1.000000 a1 0.000 12.1709080 1.000000 0.000 o1 0.000 0 lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo 0 1.000000 a1 1.2170908 1.2170908 1.000000 0.000 o1 0.000 0 lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo 0 1.000000 a1 9.8100004 9.8100004 1.000000 0.000 o1 0.000 0 lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo

1 -0.052000

54

2 1

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000000

0.000

0.000

*DEFINE_VECTOR_TITLE vector inflow y_dir $# zh 3 1 *END *COMPONENT $# 1 0 $# name Part 1 *COMPONENT_PART $# 1 $# 2 pid 1 pid 1 clid clid clid 0.769000 color1 0.004000 color2 0.110000 color3 0.000 color4 0 0 vid cid 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000000 0.000 xt yt zt xh yh

*COMPONENT_END

55

Appendix B
Particle generation script, call.m and node_element_gen.m
% CALL

close all clc clear all format long

m=8e-6; z=0; tc=0; rc=0; NIDs=1;

% WALLS dx=0.001; PID=1;

%Bottom P1=[-0.002 0]; P2=[-0.002 -0.002]; P3=[2.302 0]; [Nodemax1,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,NIDs,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc,rc)

%Left P1=[-0.002 0.26]; P2=[-0.002 0.001]; P3=[0 0.26]; [Nodemax2,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax1,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

%Gate P1=[1.2 0.26]; P2=[1.2 0.001]; P3=[1.202 0.26];

56

[Nodemax3,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax2,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

%Wier_1 P1=[2.3 0.02]; P2=[2.3 0.001]; P3=[2.302 0.02]; [Nodemax4,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax3,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

%Wier_2 P1=[2.303 0.02]; P2=[2.303 0.018]; P3=[2.5 0.02]; [Nodemax5,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax4,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

% Water dx=0.002; PID=2;

% Water1 P1=[0.002 0.2]; P2=[0.002 0.002]; P3=[1.198 0.2]; [Nodemax6,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax5,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

% Water3 P1=[1.204 0.02]; P2=[1.204 0.002]; P3=[2.298 0.02]; [Nodemax7,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,Nodemax6,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc, rc)

fidE

fopen('ELEMENT.k',

'a');

fprintf(fidE,'*END');

fclose(fidE); fidN = fopen('NODE.k', 'a'); fprintf(fidN,'*END'); fclose(fidN);

57

function [Nodemax,nx,ny]=node_element_gen(dx,PID,NIDs,m,P1,P2,P3,z,tc,rc) % Node and element generation dy=dx;

% Node generation xlen=abs(P3(1)-P1(1)); nx=round(xlen/dx); if ceil(nx)~=floor(nx), error('nx not an integer'),end

ylen=abs(P2(2)-P1(2)); ny=round(ylen/dy); if ceil(ny)~=floor(ny), error('ny not an integer'),end

x(1)=P1(1); y(1)=P1(2);

for k=2:nx+1 x(k)=x(k-1)+dx; end

for l=2:ny+1 y(l)=y(l-1)-dy; end

NID=NIDs:(NIDs+(nx+1)*(ny+1)); rek=1;

fidN = fopen('NODE.k', 'a');

58

if NIDs==1,fprintf(fidN,'*NODE\n$# y if NIDs==1, z tc fidE = fopen('ELEMENT.k', 'a');

nid

rc\n');end nid pid

fprintf(fidE,'*ELEMENT_SPH\n$#

mass\n');end for j=1:length(x) for n=1:length(y) NO(rek,:)=[NID(rek) x(j) y(n) z tc rc]; fprintf(fidN, El(rek,:)=[NID(rek),PID,m]; fprintf(fidE, El(rek,1),El(rek,2),El(rek,3)); rek=rek+1; end end fclose(fidN); fclose(fidE); Nodemax=max(NID); '%8.0d%8.0d%16.7e\n', '%8.0f%16.7f%16.7f%16.7f%8.0f%8.0f\n', NO(rek,1),NO(rek,2),NO(rek,3),NO(rek,4),NO(rek,5),NO(rek,6));

59