flotek.

g 2017- “Innovative Solutions in Flow Measurement and Control - Oil, Water and Gas”

August 28-30, 2017, FCRI, Palakkad, Kerala, India

SIMULATION OF HEAD LOSS IN TRASHRACK – A COMPARATIVE

STUDY
Jeethulakshmi G.* Sumam K. S. N. Sajikumar
Student Associate Professor Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
GEC, Thrissur GEC, Thrissur GEC, Thrissur
jeethulakshmig@gmail.com sumam@gectcr.ac.in saji@gectcr.ac.in
9495020257 9496167977 9447828911

ABSTRACT damage to the generating machine in

general and to the pre-distributor, the
Trashrack (TR) is a safe guarding distributor, the spiral-casing and runner of
structure which is provided at the inlet of the turbine in particular. In addition it
the intake structure to prevent the entry of provides protection to boaters, swimmers,
floating materials and boulders carried and the operating personnel and it may
through flowing water into the water also prevent the entry of fish of larger size
conveyance system. If these are not than the spacing of trashrack into the
prevented from entering conveyance turbines. Trashrack can also be applied to
system, they may cause damages to the the inlet of the intake structure of pumping
rotating parts of turbine unit of hydropower station, water conveyance system, storm
plants. Though it is an inevitable system drain inflows and outflows and at the
to safe guard the rotating elements of intake of water mill. Wood, steel, HDPE
power plant, it induces head loss when it (High Density Polyethylene), FRP (fibre-
is placed across the flowing water and reinforced polymer) etc. are the most
hence, reduces the efficiency of energy commonly used materials for the
production. Trashrack is normally provided construction of trashrack.
as a grid of vertical and horizontal
members. The effect of vertical member is Generally adopted trashrack bar
significant than the other one and hence orientation is vertical. This is because
its effect is investigated here. The vertical horizontal orientation of trashrack bars
members are available in different shapes provides poor performance and it also
among which rectangular profile bar is causes difficulty in the cleaning process.
most commonly used. The present study At the entrance of the penstock, the
focuses on the additional head loss trashrack structure is attached to the top
contributed by the rectangular vertical bar and bottom of the concrete structure. It
profiles by considering Fluid Structure consists of arrays of equally spaced
Interaction (FSI). parallel vertical bars held together by
horizontal supporting beams and forms a
KEYWORDS grid. The spacing of the bars is
determined by the maximum size of the
Trashrack, Rectangular profile, Head loss, body that is allowed to enter the turbine
3D model, FSI without clogging the distributor or the
turbine runner.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Several studies have been taken place for
Trashrack is an essential part of any the analysis of vibration and head loss
intake structure. This is an underwater present in the trashrack region and are
structure subjected to tremendous discussed in the subsequent sections.
vibrations and causes considerable
amount of head loss. Trashracks are Trashracks in pumped storage systems
located in the water intakes of hydropower with high flow rates can develop fatigue
plants to prevent the entry of large floating failures due to excessive vibration exerted
and submerged debris which could cause by the flow past the rods in the rack.

1
Crandall et al., [1] conducted an Fei and Xue-ping [5] studied the flow
experimental study of trashrack vibration characteristics of the side inlet/outlet
on a half-scale model of a prototype rack including water head loss, flow velocity
design for the TVA Raccoon Mountain distribution and inflow vortexes by
pumped storage system. The natural numerical simulations. The „Volume Of
frequencies and loss factors of the first Fluid‟ (VOF) method is used for the
dozen natural modes of the rack were simulation of incompressible, viscous and
determined in air before placing the rack in transient flow with free surface. The finite
a water channel. A half-scale model of the volume method is employed to discretize
modified design was built and tested to the governing equations.
verify the absence of destructive
vibrations. The IS code IS 11388: 2012 [6] provides
the standards for the design of trashracks.
Many failures of trash-racks are dynamic It describes the different types of
in nature, and hence it is important to trashracks and its selection criteria. The
understand the dynamic characteristics of main sections in this code includes
trashrack structures in general and a „inclinations of racks‟, „velocity through
single rack in particular. Sadrnejad [2] racks‟, calculation of „losses at trashracks‟,
introduced an accurate added-mass „structural design of trashracks‟, „structural
approach which can be employed to details‟ and „construction and maintenance
estimate the intensity of vibration of of Trashracks‟. It also included the
submerged structure. available trashrack bar profiles and the
standard formulas required for the design
Tsikata et al., [3] provides a study of of the trashrack.
turbulent flow near the trashrack models.
In their study, the bar thickness, bar depth, Hribernik et al., [7] has done an
and center-to-center spacing were investigation into the different trashrack
maintained as constant. The flow designs and their impact on fluid flow
characteristics were measured by aligning losses. They have selected three different
the bars with the direction of approach rack bar profiles (one simple rectangular
flow at three different stream velocities. profile and two alternative aero-
The measurements were taken for four dynamically-shaped profiles) for the
different bar inclinations relative to the investigation which cause different flow
direction of approach flow keeping the losses. The flow simulation was done by
stream velocity constant. For each test 3D CFD simulations using an ANSYS CFX
condition, a high-resolution particle image 12 solver. Gross head loss was calculated
velocimetry (PIV) technique was used. for each trashrack profiles and trashrack
This study states that the relationship having minimum head loss was identified.
between head loss and bar inclination is The net profit were calculated and
nonlinear. identified that the profit from the
alternative trashrack design can be
Trashracks represent an obstruction to the expected only after a period of 10 years.
flow has to pass. The bars in the trashrack
reduces the cross sectional area and Huang et al., [8] describes the effect of
forces the flow to accelerate through the water in the dynamic response of large
gaps in the trashrack. This acceleration trashracks. These trashracks are prone to
causes larger velocity and sheer stress fatigue damage. To attenuate this
along the bars. Due to the viscous effects, problem, the trashracks are designed in
a thin layer called the boundary layer such a manner that the coincidence
forms next to the surface. This creates a between the excitation frequencies of
reverse flow region which is highly vortex shedding and the natural
turbulent and unsteady, with shedding frequencies of the trashrack are avoided.
vortices and eddies that dissipate energy The adopted methodology includes the
[4]. calculation of modal parameters and
numerical simulation using finite element

2
models, including the surrounding mass of
water. An experimental investigation is
also carried out by them for the validation
of simulation by measuring the response
using submergible accelerometers.

Josiah et al., [9] have proposed a new

equation to estimate the head loss through
trashracks of circular bars based on their
experimental findings. A series of
experiments were conducted to calculate Figure 1 - Bar profiles as per IS
the head loss through trashracks by 11388:2012.
considering various parameters such as
Though seven trashrack bar profiles are
inclination angle with channel bed,
available, this study considers only the
approach velocity, unit discharge and
rectangular bar profile.
blockage ratio and finally arrived a new
formula. This proposed formula proved to 2.1 Head loss Calculation Using
be giving head losses through trashracks Empirical Formula
with a reasonable accuracy but it is valid
only for trashracks composed of circular The loss of head through the trashrack
bars and for partially submerged can be calculated from the following
trashracks in uniform, steady flow Kirschmer formula (IS 11388: 2012).
conditions. To update the formulation, they
found that fully submerged condition of ⁄
trashracks as well as different bar shapes Head loss, [ ] - (1)
can be considered in estimating the head
losses through trashracks. The study also 2.2 Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI)
extended to incorporate the effects of bed
friction and channel slope on the Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) is
estimation of total head loss through characterized by the coupling between a
trashracks. structure and the surrounding fluid. The
FSI process basically deals with the
The effect of FSI on head loss is not taken transfer of momentum and the forces to
in the earlier studies when a flow passing the structural part and the fluid surrounded
through the trashrack. This study analyses to it. When the water passes through the
the effect of FSI on head loss for a trashrack it experiences a dynamic force.
trashrack with rectangular bar profile. A Hence the fluid and the structure cannot
comparative study of these results has be treated separately like theoretical
also been carried out with those obtained analysis; the interaction mechanisms are
from the available empirical formula. also to be considered. For simulating the
fluid–structure interaction problems two
2.0 TRASHRACK BAR PROFILES main approaches are existing. One is
„monolithic approach‟ and other is
IS code „IS 11388:2012‟ describes the „partitioned approach‟. The partitioned
details required for the design of the approach is again divided into „one way
trashrack. As per this IS code, seven coupling‟ and „two way coupling‟. In this
trashrack bar profiles exists and the shape analysis „two way coupling‟ is considered.
factor (K) corresponding to each bar
profiles are also defined. These „K‟ values 3.0 NUMERICAL SIMULATION
are used for computing the energy loss
from empirical formula. Fig. 1 shows the The modelling is done based on an
available trashrack profiles and experimental setup where the water is
corresponding values of the shape factor. flowing freely after passing through the
trashrack. The fluid medium across the
trashrack is water with density 998.2

3
kg/m3 and viscosity 0.001003 kg/m-s. correction) when using the “pressure-
Standard k-Ɛ (2 equations) model was based” solver. Least square cell based
selected for analysing the turbulence at method is selected for the spatial
discretization of the model.
the entrance of trashrack, since it requires
less number of meshes compared with Important dimensions used for the
other models to represent the interspace modelling of a trashrack are:
between bars. The flow is “steady” and the  Thickness of vertical bar, t – 0.012m
solver type is selected as “pressure-  Width of vertical bar, d – 0.075m
based”. The “Gravity” (acceleration due to  Clear spacing between vertical bar, b
– 0.04m
gravity) 9.81 m/s2 is provided in the z-
 Clear spacing between horizontal bar,
direction in the general tab. The inlet h – 0.4m
boundary condition is taken as velocity  Length of fluid body at upstream of
2m/s since the velocity range for the flow the trashrack – 2*d
through the trashrack varies from 0.75m/s  Length of fluid body at downstream of
to 3m/s as per IS 11388:2012. The outlet the trashrack – 5*d
condition is provided as atmospheric 3.1 3D Modelling of a Rectangular
pressure since the water is falling freely. Bar Profile
Work flow diagram for the numerical
simulation is given in Fig. 2. The dimension of rectangular bar profile is
taken as 0.012m X 0.075m and the
dimension of the surrounding fluid is the
3D modelling of rectangular trashrack
0.052m X 0.6m. The dimension of
bar profile in ANSYS FLUENT software surrounding fluid is chosen for the sake of
simplicity of study of flow phenomena. For
getting the 3D fluid domain, the property
Simulation of 3D model with inlet velocity “Extrude” with the depth 0.412m is
2m/s applied. The geometry is shown in the Fig.
3.

Modification and simulation of 3D model

for incorporating FSI

Calculation of head loss using empirical

formula.

Comparative study of the head loss

obtained from 3D model, 3D model with
FSI and empirical formula.

Figure 2 - Work flow diagram

Figure 3 - Geometry of domain
The scheme selected is SIMPLE which is
an algorithm that uses a relationship The meshing of the geometry results in
between velocity and pressure corrections 1120530 elements. The head loss through
to enforce the mass conservation and to the trashrack was analyzed by running the
obtain the pressure field. “Pressure- simulation on the geometry with the inlet
Velocity Coupling” is selected which uses velocity of 2m/s.
a combination of continuity and
momentum equations to derive an
equation for pressure (or pressure

4
3.2 Analysis with Fluid Structure Case I:
Interaction (FSI)
Section along the centre of the
For incorporating Fluid Structure clear spacing between the two elements
Interaction (FSI) with 3D model, the (By considering periodicity, the
procedure for the preparation of geometry „wallbottom‟ and „walltop‟ will be act as a
has been modified as follows. A small centre line through the clear spacing).
rectangle of dimension 0.012m X 0.075m
was created. The property “extrude” in z- Case II:
direction is applied to a depth of 0.412m Section along the periphery of the
and the structural part is created. A large element
rectangle of dimension 0.052m X 0.6m
was drawn and extrude to 0.412m, and Representation of sections „Case I‟ and
the required fluid domain was generated. „Case II‟ are given the Fig. 5.
The property “Boolean” with “subtract”
operation is applied for keeping both the
parts are independent.

The analysis is carried out for the newly

created 3D model (Fig. 4) to incorporate
the effect of Fluid Structure Interaction
(FSI). For that in addition to the Fluid Flow Figure 5(a) - The top view for the
(Fluent), Transient Structural and System representation of sections Case I and
coupling is used for the simulation. Case II in the model used for the analysis.

Figure 5(b) - The top view for the

representation of sections Case I and
Case II for a model having more than one
vertical member.
Figure 4 - Geometry for analysing the If the “periodicity” is not provided on the
effect of FSI. either side of the fluid model with a single
vertical member, both the sides will act as
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS wall and effect of other members will not
account for the analysis. On analysing the
The modelling of trashrack bar profile is effect of periodicity based on the pressure
done only for a single vertical member. value, the pressure value decreases on
For getting the effect of other vertical increasing the number of vertical members
members, the property „periodicity‟ is and reaches a minimum value for the
applied on two side faces of the model. model having highest number of
For the better understanding of the members. On comparing the pressure
analysis, two sections (Case I and Case II) value corresponding to the model with
were considered in geometry of the highest number of vertical members and
trashrack bar profile. The two sections are the value from the model having single
described based on the model having all vertical member with periodic sides, it is
the structural members. found that the closeness of the results are

5
very high. Fig. 6 describes the variation of When the velocity passes through the
pressure with increasing the number of centre of the clear spacing, from the inlet,
members and the pressure on a single the velocity increases to maximum when
member applied with the property the area of flow decreases in between
„periodicity‟. structural member (due to periodicity) and
it starts decreasing towards the
Pressure v/s position graph for the analysis of downstream end (case I). If the velocity
periodicity variation through the section passing
1500

1000
along the periphery of the structural
500
single bar
without
element is analysed, it can be seen that
periodicity from the inlet, the velocity decreases at
Pressure (Pa)

0 3bars
-500
-0.16 -0.06 0.03 0.13 0.23 0.34 without the tip of the element and becomes zero
periodicity
-1000 5bars
along the periphery of the structural
-1500
without
periodicity
member to some distance (boundary
-2000
single bar layer) and then gradually increases
with
-2500
periodicity towards the downstream end (Case II).
Position (m) Similar performance is observed in the
study conducted by Crowe et al., [4]. The
Figure 6 - Comparison of the effect of Figs 8(a) and (b) represents the velocity
periodicity based on the pressure value. contour and the velocity vector
respectively, obtained from the simulation
4.1 Pressure and Velocity Analysis of 3D model.

From the inlet, the pressure value

decreases towards vacuum pressure
when the area of flow decreases in
between structural member (due to
periodicity) and increases towards the
downstream end and finally to set
pressure when the analysis done through
the centre of clear spacing between the
structural members (case I). From the Figure 8(a) - Velocity contour in 2D plane
normal value at the inlet, the pressure at sections Case I and Case II
increases at the tip of the element and
further decreases towards vapour
pressure along the periphery to some
distance (boundary layer) and then
gradually increases to set pressure while
the passing along the periphery of the
structural element (case II). The pressure
contour obtained from the simulation of 3D
model is shown Fig. 7.

Figure 8(b) - Velocity vector diagram in 2D

plane

4.2 Analysis of Head Loss

Head loss obtained from the simulation of
the 3D model of a rectangular bar profile is
107.25*10-3m. The observed head loss
Figure 7 - Pressure contour in 2D plane at shows an increasing trend for the fluid
section Case I and Case II. model and also for the model with FSI.

6
These results are compared with the along with the flow through the trashrack
results obtained from the empirical formula is analysed.
based on given shape factors (Table 1). It
is found that the results obtained from 6.0 CONCLUSION
empirical formula underestimate the actual
head loss obtained numerically. This may The head loss calculated from 3D model is
be due to the interaction of fluid with the lower than that from the model which
structure with sharp corners. These results considers the effect of FSI. FSI analysis
are depicted in Fig. 9. captures the unaccounted head loss
occurs in the simulation of 3D models. It
Table 1 - Comparison of head losses for is found that the calculated head loss
3D model, 3D model with FSI and using empirical formula is lower than that
Theoretical obtained from the numerical analysis (3D
model and 3D model with FSI). i.e., the
Head loss (m) for inlet empirical equation with the given „K‟ value
velocity 2m/s underestimates the head loss for
Bar 3D rectangular bar profile, though it is most
profile 3D model Theoreti commonly used in the trashracks.
types model with FSI cal
Rectan NOMENCLATURE
gular (K 107.25* 107.363* 99.084*
= 2.42) 10-3 10-3 10-3 hL - Head loss through trashrack;
t - Thickness of bars;
b - Clear spacing between bars;
v - Velocity of flow through trash rack,
Observed Head loss for three diffent analysis
of Rectangular bar profile computed gross area;
0.108
 - Angle of bar inclination to horizontal;
0.106
K - Factor depending on bar shape in
0.104
accordance with Fig. 1; and
Head loss (m)

0.102
g - Acceleration due to gravity.
0.1

0.098
REFERENCES
Rectangular
0.096 bar profile

0.094
[1] Crandall, S.H., Vigander, S. and
3D model 3D model with Theoretical March, P. A. 1975, “Destructive
FSI
Analysis type
Vibration of Trashracks due to Fluid-
Structure Interaction”, Design
Engineering and Technical
Figure 9 - Head loss v/s shape factor Conference, 75, 1359-1365.
graph corresponding to 3D model, 3D
model with FSI and Theoretical method [2] Sadrnejad, S.A. 2002,
“Hydrodynamics induced vibration to
5.0 RESULTS trash-racks”, IJE Transactions B:
Applications, 15(4), 357-366.
Comparative study has been done on the
head loss obtained from the trashrack of [3] Tsikata, J.M., Tachie, M.F. and
rectangular bar profile based on the three Katopodis, C. 2009, “Particle Image
analysis types (3D model, 3D model with Velocimetry Study of Flow near
FSI and Theoretical method). Numerical Trashrack Models”, Journal of
simulations were done on a 3D model Hydraulic Engineering, 135(8), 671-
applied with the property “periodicity”, to 684.
reduce the size of the geometry and thus
the software running time can be reduced, [4] Crowe, C., Elger, D., Williams, B. and
since the structure is symmetrical with x- Roberson, J. 2010, “Engineering fluid
axis. The pattern of pressure and velocity, mechanics. 9th ed.”, Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.

7
[5] Fei, Y.E. and Xue-ping, G.A.O. 2010,
“Numerical simulations of the
hydraulic characteristics of side
inlet/outlets”, Journal of
Hydrodynamics, 23(1), 48-54.

[6] IS 11388:2012, “Indian standard

Recommendations for design of
Trashracks for intakes (Second
revision)”

[7] Hribernik, A., Fike, M. and Hribernik,

T.M. 2013, “Economical optimization
of a trashrack design for a
hydropower plant”, Journal of Trends
in the Development of Machinery and
Associated Technology, 17(1), 161-
164.

[8] Huang, X., Valero, C., Egusquiza, E.,

Presas, A. and Guardo, A. 2013,
“Numerical and experimental analysis
of the dynamic response of large
submerged trash-racks”, Computers &
Fluids, 71, 54-64.

[9] Josiah, N.R., Tissera, H.P.S. and

Pathirana, K.P.P. 2016, “An
Experimental Investigation of Head
loss through TrashRacks in
Conveyance Systems”, Engineer,
49(1), 1-8.

8
 Presenting author Biodata

Name : Jeethulakshmi G

Designation : Student

Company : Govt. Engineering College,

Thrissur - 680009

E-mail : jeethulakshmig@gmail.com

Mob : 9495020257

Qualification : Pursuing M. Tech

Area of Expertise : Water Resources and Hydroinformatics

Significant Achievements: NA

Number of Papers Published in Journals: NA

Number of Papers Published in Conferences: NA