An Investigation on Hydraulic Aspects of Rectangular Labyrinth Pool and Weir Fishway Using FLOW-3D

Abstract

Two different arrangements of the weir (i.e., straight weir and rectangular labyrinth weir) were used to evaluate the effects of geometric parameters such as weir shape, weir spacing, presence of an orifice at the weir, and bed slope on the flow regime and the relationship between discharge and depth, variation and distribution of depth-averaged velocity, turbulence characteristics, and energy dissipation at the fishway. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed using FLOW-3D® software to examine the effects on flow conditions. The numerical model was validated by comparing the calculated surface profiles and velocities with experimentally measured values from the literature. The results of the numerical model and experimental data showed that the root-mean-square error and mean absolute percentage error for the surface profiles and normalized velocity profiles of plunging flows were 0.014 m and 3.11%, respectively, confirming the ability of the numerical model to predict the flow characteristics of the pool and weir. A plunging flow can occur at values of L/B = 1.83 (L: distance of the weir, B: width of the channel) and streaming flow at L/B = 0.61 for each model. The rectangular labyrinth weir model has larger dimensionless discharge values (Q+) than the conventional model. For the conventional weir and the rectangular labyrinth weir at submerged flow, Q is proportional to 1.56 and 1.47h, respectively (h: the water depth above the weir). The average depth velocity in the pool of a conventional weir is higher than that of a rectangular labyrinth weir. However, for a given discharge, bed slope, and weir spacing, the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and turbulence intensity (TI) values are higher for a rectangular labyrinth weir compared to conventional weir. The conventional weir has lower energy dissipation than the rectangular labyrinth weir. Lower TKE and TI values were observed at the top of the labyrinth weir, at the corner of the wall downstream of the weir, and between the side walls of the weir and the channel wall. As the distance between the weirs and the bottom slope increased, the average depth velocity, the average value of turbulent kinetic energy and the turbulence intensity increased, and the volumetric energy dissipation in the pool decreased. The presence of an opening in the weir increased the average depth velocity and TI values and decreased the range of highest TKE within the pool, resulted in larger resting areas for fish (lower TKE), and decreased the energy dissipation rates in both models.

1 Introduction

Artificial barriers such as detour dams, weirs, and culverts in lakes and rivers prevent fish from migrating and completing the upstream and downstream movement cycle. This chain is related to the life stage of the fish, its location, and the type of migration. Several riverine fish species instinctively migrate upstream for spawning and other needs. Conversely, downstream migration is a characteristic of early life stages [1]. A fish ladder is a waterway that allows one or more fish species to cross a specific obstacle. These structures are constructed near detour dams and other transverse structures that have prevented such migration by allowing fish to overcome obstacles [2]. The flow pattern in fish ladders influences safe and comfortable passage for ascending fish. The flow’s strong turbulence can reduce the fish’s speed, injure them, and delay or prevent them from exiting the fish ladder. In adult fish, spawning migrations are usually complex, and delays are critical to reproductive success [3].

Various fish ladders/fishways include vertical slots, denil, rock ramps, and pool weirs [1]. The choice of fish ladder usually depends on many factors, including water elevation, space available for construction, and fish species. Pool and weir structures are among the most important fish ladders that help fish overcome obstacles in streams or rivers and swim upstream [1]. Because they are easy to construct and maintain, this type of fish ladder has received considerable attention from researchers and practitioners. Such a fish ladder consists of a sloping-floor channel with series of pools directly separated by a series of weirs [4]. These fish ladders, with or without underwater openings, are generally well-suited for slopes of 10% or less [1, 2]. Within these pools, flow velocities are low and provide resting areas for fish after they enter the fish ladder. After resting in the pools, fish overcome these weirs by blasting or jumping over them [2]. There may also be an opening in the flooded portion of the weir through which the fish can swim instead of jumping over the weir. Design parameters such as the length of the pool, the height of the weir, the slope of the bottom, and the water discharge are the most important factors in determining the hydraulic structure of this type of fish ladder [3]. The flow over the weir depends on the flow depth at a given slope S0 and the pool length, either “plunging” or “streaming.” In plunging flow, the water column h over each weir creates a water jet that releases energy through turbulent mixing and diffusion mechanisms [5]. The dimensionless discharges for plunging (Q+) and streaming (Q*) flows are shown in Fig. 1, where Q is the total discharge, B is the width of the channel, w is the weir height, S₀ is the slope of the bottom, h is the water depth above the weir, d is the flow depth, and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The maximum velocity occurs near the top of the weir for plunging flow. At the water’s surface, it drops to about half [6].

Fig. 1

Weir fishways dimensionless discharge equations: a: Plunging flow and b: Streaming flow

Extensive experimental studies have been conducted to investigate flow patterns for various physical geometries (i.e., bed slope, pool length, and weir height) [2]. Guiny et al. [7] modified the standard design by adding vertical slots, orifices, and weirs in fishways. The efficiency of the orifices and vertical slots was related to the velocities at their entrances. In the laboratory experiments of Yagci [8], the three-dimensional (3D) mean flow and turbulence structure of a pool weir fishway combined with an orifice and a slot is investigated. It is shown that the energy dissipation per unit volume and the discharge have a linear relationship.

Considering the beneficial characteristics reported in the limited studies of researchers on the labyrinth weir in the pool-weir-type fishway, and knowing that the characteristics of flow in pool-weir-type fishways are highly dependent on the geometry of the weir, an alternative design of the rectangular labyrinth weir instead of the straight weirs in the pool-weir-type fishway is investigated in this study [7, 9]. Kim [10] conducted experiments to compare the hydraulic characteristics of three different weir types in a pool-weir-type fishway. The results show that a straight, rectangular weir with a notch is preferable to a zigzag or trapezoidal weir. Studies on natural fish passes show that pass ability can be improved by lengthening the weir’s crest [7]. Zhong et al. [11] investigated the semi-rigid weir’s hydraulic performance in the fishway’s flow field with a pool weir. The results showed that this type of fishway performed better with a lower invert slope and a smaller radius ratio but with a larger pool spacing.

Considering that an alternative method to study the flow characteristics in a fishway with a pool weir is based on numerical methods and modeling from computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which can easily change the geometry of the fishway for different flow fields, this study uses the powerful package CFD and the software FLOW-3D to evaluate the proposed weir design and compare it with the conventional one to extend the application of the fishway. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the hydraulic performance of the rectangular labyrinth pool and the weir with submerged openings in different hydraulic configurations. The primary objective of creating a new weir configuration for suitable flow patterns is evaluated based on the swimming capabilities of different fish species. Specifically, the following questions will be answered: (a) How do the various hydraulic and geometric parameters relate to the effects of water velocity and turbulence, expressed as turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and turbulence intensity (TI) within the fishway, i.e., are conventional weirs more affected by hydraulics than rectangular labyrinth weirs? (b) Which weir configurations have the greatest effect on fish performance in the fishway? (c) In the presence of an orifice plate, does the performance of each weir configuration differ with different weir spacing, bed gradients, and flow regimes from that without an orifice plate?

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Physical Model Configuration

This paper focuses on Ead et al. [6]’s laboratory experiments as a reference, testing ten pool weirs (Fig. 2). The experimental flume was 6 m long, 0.56 m wide, and 0.6 m high, with a bottom slope of 10%. Field measurements were made at steady flow with a maximum flow rate of 0.165 m³/s. Discharge was measured with magnetic flow meters in the inlets and water level with point meters (see Ead et al. [6]. for more details). Table 1 summarizes the experimental conditions considered for model calibration in this study.

Fig. 2

Schematics of the experimental setup, Ead et al. [6]

Table 1 Experimental conditions considered for calibration

2.2 Numerical Models

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed using FLOW-3D® v11.2 to validate a series of experimental liner pool weirs by Ead et al. [6] and to investigate the effects of the rectangular labyrinth pool weir with an orifice. The dimensions of the channel and data collection areas in the numerical models are the same as those of the laboratory model. Two types of pool weirs were considered: conventional and labyrinth. The proposed rectangular labyrinth pool weirs have a symmetrical cross section and are sized to fit within the experimental channel. The conventional pool weir model had a pool length of l = 0.685 and 0.342 m, a weir height of w = 0.141 m, a weir width of B = 0.56 m, and a channel slope of S₀ = 5 and 10%. The rectangular labyrinth weirs have the same front width as the offset, i.e., a = b = c = 0.186 m. A square underwater opening with a width of 0.05 m and a depth of 0.05 m was created in the middle of the weir. The weir configuration considered in the present study is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

View fishway configuration a: Model A—conventional liner pool weir b: Model B—rectangular labyrinth pool weir

2.3 Governing Equations

FLOW-3D® software solves the Navier–Stokes–Reynolds equations for three-dimensional analysis of incompressible flows using the fluid-volume method on a gridded domain. FLOW -3D® uses an advanced free surface flow tracking algorithm (TruVOF) developed by Hirt and Nichols [12], where fluid configurations are defined in terms of a VOF function F (x, y, z, t). In this case, F (fluid fraction) represents the volume fraction occupied by the fluid: F = 1 in cells filled with fluid and F = 0 in cells without fluid (empty areas) [4, 13]. The free surface area is at an intermediate value of F. (Typically, F = 0.5, but the user can specify a different intermediate value.) The equations in Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) applicable to the model are as follows:

$$V_{{\text{f}}} \frac{\partial \rho }{{\partial t}} + \frac{{\partial (\rho uA_{{\text{x}}} )}}{\partial x} + \frac{{\partial (\rho vA_{{\text{y}}} )}}{\partial y} + \frac{{\partial (\rho wA_{{\text{z}}} )}}{\partial z} = R_{{{\text{SOR}}}}$$

(1)

$$\frac{\partial u}{{\partial t}} + \frac{1}{{V_{{\text{f}}} }}(uA_{{\text{x}}} \frac{\partial u}{{\partial x}} + vA_{{\text{y}}} \frac{\partial u}{{\partial y}} + wA_{{\text{z}}} \frac{\partial u}{{\partial z}}) = - \frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\partial P}{{\partial x}} + G_{{\text{x}}} + f_{{\text{x}}}$$

(2)

$$\frac{\partial v}{{\partial t}} + \frac{1}{{V_{{\text{f}}} }}\left( {uA_{{\text{x}}} \frac{\partial v}{{\partial x}} + vA_{{\text{y}}} \frac{\partial v}{{\partial y}} + wA_{{\text{z}}} \frac{\partial v}{{\partial z}}} \right) = - \frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\partial P}{{\partial y}} + G_{{\text{y}}} + f_{{\text{y}}}$$

(3)

$$\frac{\partial w}{{\partial t}} + \frac{1}{{V_{{\text{f}}} }}\left( {uA_{{\text{x}}} \frac{\partial w}{{\partial x}} + vA_{{\text{y}}} \frac{\partial w}{{\partial y}} + wA_{{\text{z}}} \frac{\partial w}{{\partial z}}} \right) = - \frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\partial P}{{\partial w}} + G_{{\text{z}}} + f_{{\text{z}}}$$

(4)

where (u, v, w) are the velocity components, (A_x, A_y, A_z) are the flow area components, (G_x, G_y, G_z) are the mass accelerations, and (f_x, f_y, f_z) are the viscous accelerations in the directions (x, y, z), ρ is the fluid density, R_SOR is the spring term, V_f is the volume fraction associated with the flow, and P is the pressure. The k–ε turbulence model (RNG) was used in this study to solve the turbulence of the flow field. This model is a modified version of the standard k–ε model that improves performance. The model is a two-equation model; the first equation (Eq. 5) expresses the turbulence’s energy, called turbulent kinetic energy (k) [14]. The second equation (Eq. 6) is the turbulent dissipation rate (ε), which determines the rate of dissipation of kinetic energy [15]. These equations are expressed as follows Dasineh et al. [4]:

$$\frac{\partial (\rho k)}{{\partial t}} + \frac{{\partial (\rho ku_{i} )}}{{\partial x_{i} }} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_{j} }}[\alpha_{k} \mu_{eff} \frac{\partial k}{{\partial x_{j} }}] + G_{k} - \rho \varepsilon$$

(5)

$$\frac{\partial (\rho \varepsilon )}{{\partial t}} + \frac{{\partial (\rho \varepsilon u_{i} )}}{{\partial x_{i} }} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_{j} }}\left[ {\alpha_{\varepsilon } \mu_{{{\text{eff}}}} \frac{\partial \varepsilon }{{\partial x_{j} }}} \right] + C_{1\varepsilon } \frac{\varepsilon }{k}G_{{\text{k}}} - C_{2\varepsilon }^{{}} \rho \frac{{\varepsilon^{2} }}{k}$$

(6)

In these equations, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ε is the turbulent energy consumption rate, G_k is the generation of turbulent kinetic energy by the average velocity gradient, with empirical constants α_ε = α_k = 1.39, C_1ε = 1.42, and C_2ε = 1.68, eff is the effective viscosity, μ_eff = μ + μ_t [15]. Here, μ is the hydrodynamic density coefficient, and μ_t is the turbulent density of the fluid.

2.4 Meshing and the Boundary Conditions in the Model Setup

The numerical area is divided into three mesh blocks in the X-direction. The meshes are divided into different sizes, a containing mesh block for the entire spatial domain and a nested block with refined cells for the domain of interest. Three different sizes were selected for each of the grid blocks. By comparing the accuracy of their results based on the experimental data, the reasonable mesh for the solution domain was finally selected. The convergence index method (GCI) evaluated the mesh sensitivity analysis. Based on this method, many researchers, such as Ahmadi et al. [16] and Ahmadi et al. [15], have studied the independence of numerical results from mesh size. Three different mesh sizes with a refinement ratio (r) of 1.33 were used to perform the convergence index method. The refinement ratio is the ratio between the larger and smaller mesh sizes (r = G_coarse/G_fine). According to the recommendation of Celik et al. [17], the recommended number for the refinement ratio is 1.3, which gives acceptable results. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the three mesh sizes selected for mesh sensitivity analysis.

Table 2 Characteristics of the meshes tested in the convergence analysis

The results of u₁ = u_max (u₁ = velocity component along the x₁ axis and u_max = maximum velocity of u₁ in a section perpendicular to the invert of the fishway) at Q = 0.035 m³/s, × 1/l = 0.66, and Y₁/b = 0 in the pool of conventional weir No. 4, obtained from the output results of the software, were used to evaluate the accuracy of the calculation range. As shown in Fig. 4, x₁ = the distance from a given weir in the x-direction, Y₁ = the water depth measured in the y-direction, Y₀ = the vertical distance in the Cartesian coordinate system, h = the water column at the crest, b = the distance between the two points of maximum velocity u_max and zero velocity, and l = the pool length.

Fig. 4

Definition of variables flows over pool weir fishway after Li et al. [18]

The apparent index of convergence (p) in the GCI method is calculated as follows:

$$p = \ln \frac{{(f_{3} - f_{2} )}}{{(f_{2} - f_{1} )}}/\ln (r)$$

(7)

f₁, f₂, and f₃ are the hydraulic parameters obtained from the numerical simulation (f₁ corresponds to the small mesh), and r is the refinement ratio. The following equation defines the convergence index of the fine mesh:

$${\text{GCI}}_{{{\text{fine}}}}^{{}} = \frac{1.25\left| \varepsilon \right|}{{r_{{}}^{p} - 1}}$$

(8)

Here, ε = (f₂ − f₁)/f₁ is the relative error, and f₂ and f₃ are the values of hydraulic parameters considered for medium and small grids, respectively. GCI₁₂ and GCI₂₃ dimensionless indices can be calculated as:

$${\text{GCI}}_{12}^{{}} = \frac{{1.25\left| {\frac{{f_{2} - f_{1} }}{{f_{1} }}} \right|}}{{r_{{}}^{p} - 1}}$$

(9)

Then, the independence of the network is preserved. The convergence index of the network parameters obtained by Eqs. (7)–(9) for all three network variables is shown in Table 3. Since the GCI values for the smaller grid (GCI₁₂) are lower compared to coarse grid (GCI₂₃), it can be concluded that the independence of the grid is almost achieved. No further change in the grid size of the solution domain is required. The calculated values (GCI₂₃/r^pGCI₁₂) are close to 1, which shows that the numerical results obtained are within the convergence range. As a result, the meshing of the solution domain consisting of a block mesh with a mesh size of 0.012 m and a block mesh within a larger block mesh with a mesh size of 0.009 m was selected as the optimal mesh (Fig. 5).

Table 3 GCI calculation

Fig. 5

Meshing of the domain

The boundary conditions applied to the area are shown in Fig. 6. The boundary condition of specific flow rate (volume flow rate-Q) was used for the inlet of the flow. For the downstream boundary, the flow output (outflow-O) condition did not affect the flow in the solution area. For the Z_max boundary, the specified pressure boundary condition was used along with the fluid fraction = 0 (P). This type of boundary condition considers free surface or atmospheric pressure conditions (Ghaderi et al. [19]). The wall boundary condition is defined for the bottom of the channel, which acts like a virtual wall without friction (W). The boundary between mesh blocks and walls were considered a symmetrical condition (S).

Fig. 6

Boundary conditions in the domain

The convergence of the steady-state solutions was controlled during the simulations by monitoring the changes in discharge at the inlet boundary conditions. Figure 7 shows the time series plots of the discharge obtained from the Model A for the three main discharges from the numerical results. The 8 s to reach the flow equilibrium is suitable for the case of the fish ladder with pool and weir. Almost all discharge fluctuations in the models are insignificant in time, and the flow has reached relative stability. The computation time for the simulations was between 6 and 8 h using a personal computer with eight cores of a CPU (Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20 GHz and 16 GB RAM).

Fig. 7

Time series related to the discharge in the Model A (conventional liner pool weir). a: Q = 0.045 m³/s b: Q = 0.090 m³/s c: Q = 0.140 m³/s

3 Results

3.1 Verification of Numerical Results

Quantitative outcomes, including free surface and normalized velocity profiles obtained using FLOW-3D software, were reviewed and compared with the results of Ead et al. [6]. The fourth pool was selected to present the results and compare the experiment and simulation. For each quantity, the percentage of mean absolute error (MAPE (%)) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) are calculated. Equations (10) and (11) show the method used to calculate the errors.

$${\text{MAPE}}\;\left( \% \right) \;100 \times \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{1}^{n} {\left| {\frac{{X_{\exp } - X_{{{\text{num}}}} }}{{X_{\exp } }}} \right|}$$

(10)

$${\text{RMSE}}\;\left( - \right)\;\sqrt {\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{1}^{n} {\left( {X_{\exp } - X_{{{\text{num}}}} } \right)^{2} } }$$

(11)

Here, X_exp is the value of the laboratory data, X_num is the numerical data value, and n is the amount of data. As shown in Fig. 8, let x₁ = distance from a given weir in the x-direction and Y₁ = water depth in the y-direction from the bottom. The trend of the surface profiles for each of the numerical results is the same as that of the laboratory results. The surface profiles of the plunging flows drop after the flow enters and then rises to approach the next weir. The RMSE and MAPE error values for Model A are 0.014 m and 3.11%, respectively, indicating acceptable agreement between numerical and laboratory results. Figure 9 shows the velocity vectors and plunging flow from the numerical results, where x and y are horizontal and vertical to the flow direction, respectively. It can be seen that the jet in the fish ladder pool has a relatively high velocity. The two vortices, i.e., the enclosed vortex rotating clockwise behind the weir and the surface vortex rotating counterclockwise above the jet, are observed for the regime of incident flow. The point where the jet meets the fish passage bed is shown in the figure. The normalized velocity profiles upstream and downstream of the impact points are shown in Fig. 10. The figure shows that the numerical results agree well with the experimental data of Ead et al. [6].

Fig. 8

Comparison between simulations and experimental of free surface profile results

Fig. 9

Velocity vectors and the plunging flow for Model A (Q = 0.035 m³/s; l = 0.685 m; w = 0.141 m)

Fig. 10

Comparison between simulations and experimental of normalized velocity profiles for Model A; a: Upstream of the impingement point b: Downstream of the impingement point

3.2 Flow Regime and Discharge-Depth Relationship

Depending on the geometric shape of the fishway, including the distance of the weir, the slope of the bottom, the height of the weir, and the flow conditions, the flow regime in the fishway is divided into three categories: dipping, transitional, and flow regimes [4]. In the plunging flow regime, the flow enters the pool through the weir, impacts the bottom of the fishway, and forms a hydraulic jump causing two eddies [2, 20]. In the streamwise flow regime, the surface of the flow passing over the weir is almost parallel to the bottom of the channel. The transitional regime has intermediate flow characteristics between the submerged and flow regimes. To predict the flow regime created in the fishway, Ead et al. [6] proposed two dimensionless parameters, Q_t* and L/w, where Q_t* is the dimensionless discharge, L is the distance between weirs, and w is the height of the weir:

$$Q_{t}^{*} = \frac{Q}{{BS_{0} L\sqrt {gL} }}$$

(12)

Q is the total discharge, B is the width of the channel, S₀ is the slope of the bed, and g is the gravity acceleration. Figure 11 shows different ranges for each flow regime based on the slope of the bed and the distance between the pools in this study. The results of Baki et al. [21], Ead et al. [6] and Dizabadi et al. [22] were used for this comparison. The distance between the pools affects the changes in the regime of the fish ladder. So, if you decrease the distance between weirs, the flow regime more likely becomes. This study determined all three flow regimes in a fish ladder. When the corresponding range of Q_t* is less than 0.6, the flow regime can dip at values of L/B = 1.83. If the corresponding range of Q_t* is greater than 0.5, transitional flow may occur at L/B = 1.22. On the other hand, when Q_t* is greater than 1, streamwise flow can occur at values of L/B = 0.61. These observations agree well with the results of Baki et al. [21], Ead et al. [6] and Dizabadi et al. [22].

Fig. 11

Flow regime classification

For plunging flows, another dimensionless discharge (Q+) versus h/w given by Ead et al. [6] was used for further evaluation:

$$Q + = \frac{Q}{{Bh\sqrt {gh} }} = \frac{2}{3}C_{{\text{d}}} \sqrt g$$

(13)

where h is the water depth above the weir, and C_d is the discharge coefficient. Figure 12a compares the numerical and experimental results of Ead et al. [6]. In this figure, Rehbock’s empirical equation is used to estimate the discharge coefficient of Ead et al. [6].

$$C_{{\text{d}}} = 0.57 + 0.075\frac{h}{w}$$

(14)

Fig. 12

Plunging flow: a variation of Q + with h/w; b Q with h

The numerical results for the conventional weir (Model A) and the rectangular labyrinth weir (Model B) of this study agree well with the laboratory results of Ead et al. [6]. When comparing models A and B, it is also found that a rectangular labyrinth weir has larger Q + values than the conventional weir as the length of the weir crest increases for a given channel width and fixed headwater elevation. In Fig. 12b, Models A and B’s flow depth plot shows the plunging flow regime. The power trend lines drawn through the data are the best-fit lines. The data shown in Fig. 12b are for different bed slopes and weir geometries. For the conventional weir and the rectangular labyrinth weir at submerged flow, Q can be assumed to be proportional to 1.56 and 1.47h, respectively. In the results of Ead et al. [6], Q is proportional to 1.5h. If we assume that the flow through the orifice is Q_o and the total outflow is Q, the change in the ratio of Q_o/Q to total outflow for models A and B can be shown in Fig. 13. For both models, the flow through the orifice decreases as the total flow increases. A logarithmic trend line was also found between the total outflow and the dimensionless ratio Q_o/Q.

Fig. 13

Variation of Q_o/Q with Q

3.3 Depth-Averaged Velocity Distributions

To ensure that the target fish species can pass the fish ladder with maximum efficiency, the average velocity in the fish ladder should be low enough [4]. Therefore, the average velocity in depth should be as much as possible below the critical swimming velocities of the target fishes at a constant flow depth in the pool [20]. The contour plot of depth-averaged velocity was used instead of another direction, such as longitudinal velocity because fish are more sensitive to depth-averaged flow velocity than to its direction under different hydraulic conditions. Figure 14 shows the distribution of depth-averaged velocity in the pool for Models A and B in two cases with and without orifice plates. Model A’s velocity within the pool differs slightly in the spanwise direction. However, no significant variation in velocity was observed. The flow is gradually directed to the sides as it passes through the rectangular labyrinth weir. This increases the velocity at the sides of the channel. Therefore, the high-velocity zone is located at the sides. The low velocity is in the downstream apex of the weir. This area may be suitable for swimming target fish. The presence of an opening in the weir increases the flow velocity at the opening and in the pool’s center, especially in Model A. The flow velocity increase caused by the models’ opening varied from 7.7 to 12.48%. Figure 15 illustrates the effect of the inverted slope on the averaged depth velocity distribution in the pool at low and high discharge. At constant discharge, flow velocity increases with increasing bed slope. In general, high flow velocity was found in the weir toe sidewall and the weir and channel sidewalls.

Fig. 14

Contour plot of depth-averaged velocity with and without orifice (Q = 0.150 m³/s; S₀ = 5%; L/B = 1.22; z = w/2) a: Model A b: Model B c: Model A with orifice d: Model B with the orifice

Fig. 15

Contour plot of depth-averaged velocity with different slope bed (L/B = 1.22; z = w/2). a: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.150 m³/s

On the other hand, for a constant bed slope, the high-velocity area of the pool increases due to the increase in runoff. For both bed slopes and different discharges, the most appropriate path for fish to travel from upstream to downstream is through the middle of the cross section and along the top of the rectangular labyrinth weirs. The maximum dominant velocities for Model B at S₀ = 5% were 0.83 and 1.01 m/s; at S₀ = 10%, they were 1.12 and 1.61 m/s at low and high flows, respectively. The low mean velocities for the same distance and S₀ = 5 and 10% were 0.17 and 0.26 m/s, respectively.

Figure 16 shows the contour of the averaged depth velocity for various distances from the weir at low and high discharge. The contour plot shows a large variation in velocity within short distances from the weir. At L/B = 0.61, velocities are low upstream and downstream of the top of the weir. The high velocities occur in the side walls of the weir and the channel. At L/B = 1.22, the low-velocity zone displaces the higher velocity in most of the pool. Higher velocities were found only on the sides of the channel. As the discharge increases, the velocity zone in the pool becomes wider. At L/B = 1.83, there is an area of higher velocities only upstream of the crest and on the sides of the weir. At high discharge, the prevailing maximum velocities for L/B = 0.61, 1.22, and 1.83 were 1.46, 1.65, and 1.84 m/s, respectively. As the distance between weirs increases, the range of maximum velocity increases.

Fig. 16

Contour plot of depth-averaged velocity with different pool space (S₀ = 10%; z = w/2). a: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.150 m³/s e: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.055 m³/s f: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.150 m³/s

On the other hand, the low mean velocity for these distances was 0.27, 0.44, and 0.72 m/s, respectively. Thus, the low-velocity zone decreases with increasing distance between weirs. Figure 17 shows the pattern distribution of streamlines along with the velocity contour at various distances from the weir for Q = 0.05 m³/s. A stream-like flow is generally formed in the pool at a small distance between weirs (L/B = 0.61). The rotation cell under the jet forms clockwise between the two weirs. At the distances between the spillways (L/B = 1.22), the transition regime of the flow is formed. The transition regime occurs when or shortly after the weir is flooded. The rotation cell under the jet is clockwise smaller than the flow regime and larger than the submergence regime. At a distance L/B = 1.83, a plunging flow is formed so that the plunging jet dips into the pool and extends downstream to the center of the pool. The clockwise rotation of the cell is bounded by the dipping jet of the weir and is located between the bottom and the side walls of the weir and the channel.

Fig. 17

Streamline patterns and contours of the main velocity. a: L/B = 0.61 b: L/B = 1.22 c: L/B = 1.83

Figure 18 shows the average depth velocity bar graph for each weir at different bed slopes and with and without orifice plates. As the distance between weirs increases, all models’ average depth velocity increases. As the slope of the bottom increases and an orifice plate is present, the average depth velocity in the pool increases. In addition, the average pool depth velocity increases as the discharge increases. Among the models, Model A’s average depth velocity is higher than Model B’s. The variation in velocity ranged from 8.11 to 12.24% for the models without an orifice plate and from 10.26 to 16.87% for the models with an orifice plate.

Fig. 18

Bar graph showing depth-averaged velocity inside the pool for each model. a: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.150 m³/s

3.4 Turbulence Characteristics

The turbulent kinetic energy is one of the important parameters reflecting the turbulent properties of the flow field [23]. When the k value is high, more energy and a longer transit time are required to migrate the target species. The turbulent kinetic energy is defined as follows:

$$k = \frac{1}{2}\left( {u_{{\text{x}}}^{\prime 2} + u_{{\text{y}}}^{\prime 2} + u_{{\text{z}}}^{\prime 2} } \right)$$

(15)

where u_x, u_y, and u_z are fluctuating velocities in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. An illustration of the TKE and the effects of the geometric arrangement of the weir and the presence of an opening in the weir is shown in Fig. 19. For a given bed slope, in Model A, the highest TKE values are uniformly distributed in the weir’s upstream portion in the channel’s cross section. In contrast, for the rectangular labyrinth weir (Model B), the highest TKE values are concentrated on the sides of the pool between the crest of the weir and the channel wall. The highest TKE value in Models A and B is 0.224 and 0.278 J/kg, respectively, at the highest bottom slope (S₀ = 10%). In the downstream portion of the conventional weir and within the crest of the weir and the walls of the rectangular labyrinth, there was a much lower TKE value that provided the best conditions for fish to recover in the pool between the weirs. The average of the lowest TKE for bottom slopes of 5 and 10% in Model A is 0.041 and 0.056 J/kg, and for Model B, is 0.047 and 0.064 J/kg. The presence of an opening in the weirs reduces the area of the highest TKE within the pool. It also increases the resting areas for fish (lower TKE). The highest TKE at the highest bottom slope in Models A and B with an orifice is 0.208 and 0.191 J/kg, respectively.

Fig. 19

Contour plot of turbulent kinetic energy with and without orifice (Q = 0.150 m³/s; S₀ = 10%; L/B = 1.22; z = w/2) a: Model A b: Model B c: Model A with orifice d: Model B with the orifice

Figure 20 shows the effect of slope on the longitudinal distribution of TKE in the pools. TKE values significantly increase for a given discharge with an increasing bottom slope. Thus, for a low bed slope (S₀ = 5%), a large pool area has expanded with average values of 0.131 and 0.168 J/kg for low and high discharge, respectively. For a bed slope of S₀ = 10%, the average TKE values are 0.176 and 0.234 J/kg. Furthermore, as the discharge increases, the area with high TKE values within the pool increases. Lower TKE values are observed at the apex of the labyrinth weir, at the corner of the wall downstream of the weir, and between the side walls of the weir and the channel wall for both bottom slopes. The effect of distance between weirs on TKE is shown in Fig. 21. Low TKE values were observed at low discharge and short distances between weirs. Low TKE values are located at the top of the rectangular labyrinth weir and the downstream corner of the weir wall. There is a maximum value of TKE at the large distances between weirs, L/B = 1.83, along the center line of the pool, where the dip jet meets the bottom of the bed. At high discharge, the maximum TKE value for the distance L/B = 0.61, 1.22, and 1.83 was 0.246, 0.322, and 0.417 J/kg, respectively. In addition, the maximum TKE range increases with the distance between weirs.

Fig. 20

Contour plot of turbulent kinetic energy with different slope bed (L/B = 1.22; z = w/2) a: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.150 m³/s

Fig. 21

Contour plot of turbulent kinetic energy with different pool space (S₀ = 10%; z = w/2) a: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.150 m³/s e: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.055 m³/s f: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.150 m³/s

For TKE size, the average value (TKE_ave) is plotted against q in Fig. 22. For all models, the TKE values increase with increasing q. For example, in models A and B with L/B = 0.61 and a slope of 10%, the TKE value increases by 41.66 and 86.95%, respectively, as q increases from 0.1 to 0.27 m²/s. The TKE values in Model B are higher than Model A for a given discharge, bed slope, and weir distance. The TKE_ave in Model B is higher compared to Model A, ranging from 31.46 to 57.94%. The presence of an orifice in the weir reduces the TKE values in both weirs. The intensity of the reduction is greater in Model B. For example, in Models A and B with L/B = 0.61 and q = 0.1 m²/s, an orifice reduces TKE_ave values by 60.35 and 19.04%, respectively. For each model, increasing the bed slope increases the TKE_ave values in the pool. For example, for Model B with q = 0.18 m²/s, increasing the bed slope from 5 to 10% increases the TKE_ave value by 14.34%. Increasing the distance between weirs increases the TKE_ave values in the pool. For example, in Model B with S₀ = 10% and q = 0.3 m²/s, the TKE_ave in the pool increases by 34.22% if you increase the distance between weirs from L/B = 0.61 to L/B = 0.183.

Fig. 22

Turbulent kinetic energy variations of average turbulent kinetic energy (TKE_ave) as a function of q, a: L/B = 0.61; S₀ = 10% b: L/B = 0.61; S₀ = 5% c: L/B = 1.22; S₀ = 10% d: L/B = 1.22; S₀ = 5% e: L/B = 1.83; S₀ = 10% f: L/B = 1.83; S₀ = 5%

Cotel et al. [24] suggested that turbulence intensity (TI) is a suitable parameter for studying fish swimming performance. Figure 23 shows the plot of TI and the effects of the geometric arrangement of the weir and the presence of an orifice. In Model A, the highest TI values are found upstream of the weirs and are evenly distributed across the cross section of the channel. The TI values increase as you move upstream to downstream in the pool. For the rectangular labyrinth weir, the highest TI values were concentrated on the sides of the pool, between the top of the weir and the side wall of the channel, and along the top of the weir. Downstream of the conventional weir, within the apex of the weir, and at the corners of the walls of the rectangular labyrinth weir, the percentage of TI was low. At the highest discharge, the average range of TI in Models A and B was 24–45% and 15–62%, respectively. The diversity of TI is greater in the rectangular labyrinth weir than the conventional weir. Fish swimming performance is reduced due to higher turbulence intensity. However, fish species may prefer different disturbance intensities depending on their swimming abilities; for example, Salmo trutta prefers a disturbance intensity of 18–53% [25]. Kupferschmidt and Zhu [26] found a higher range of TI for fishways, such as natural rock weirs, of 40–60%. The presence of an orifice in the weir increases TI values within the pool, especially along the middle portion of the cross section of the fishway. With an orifice in the weir, the average range of TI in Models A and B was 28–59% and 22–73%, respectively.

Fig. 23

Contour plot of the turbulent intensities with and without orifice (Q = 0.150 m³/s; S₀ = 10%; L/B = 1.22; z = w/2) a: Model A b: Model B c: Model A with orifice d: Model B with the orifice

The effect of bed slope on TI variation is shown in Fig. 24. TI increases in different pool areas as the bed slope increases for a given discharge. For a low bed slope (S₀ = 5%), a large pool area has increased from 38 to 63% and from 56 to 71% for low and high discharge, respectively. For a bed slope of S₀ = 10%, the average values of TI are 45–67% and 61–73% for low and high discharge, respectively. Therefore, as runoff increases, the area with high TI values within the pool increases. A lower TI is observed for both bottom slopes in the corner of the wall, downstream of the crest walls, and between the side walls in the weir and channel. Figure 25 compares weir spacing with the distribution of TI values within the pool. The TI values are low at low flows and short distances between weirs. A maximum value of TI occurs at long spacing and where the plunging stream impinges on the bed and the area around the bed. TI ranges from 36 to 57%, 58–72%, and 47–76% for the highest flow in a wide pool area for L/B = 0.61, 1.22, and 1.83, respectively.

Fig. 24

Contour plot of the turbulent intensities with different slope beds (L/B = 1.22; z = w/2). a: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: S₀ = 5%; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: S₀ = 10%; Q = 0.150 m³/s

Fig. 25

Contour plot of the turbulent intensities with different pool spaces (S₀ = 10%; z = w/2). a: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.055 m³/s b: L/B = 0.61; Q = 0.150 m³/s c: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.055 m³/s d: L/B = 1.22; Q = 0.150 m³/s e: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.055 m³/s f: L/B = 1.83; Q = 0.150 m³/s

The average value of turbulence intensity (TI_ave) is plotted against q in Fig. 26. The increase in TI values with the increase in q values is seen in all models. For example, the average values of TI for Models A and B at L/B = 0.61 and slope of 10% increased from 23.9 to 33.5% and from 42 to 51.8%, respectively, with the increase in q from 0.1 to 0.27 m²/s. For a given discharge, a given gradient, and a given spacing of weirs, the TI_ave is higher in Model B than Model A. The presence of an orifice in the weirs increases the TI values in both types. For example, in Models A and B with L/B = 0.61 and q = 0.1 m²/s, the presence of an orifice increases TI_ave from 23.9 to 37.1% and from 42 to 48.8%, respectively. For each model, TI_ave in the pool increases with increasing bed slope. For Model B with q = 0.18 m²/s, TI_ave increases from 37.5 to 45.8% when you increase the invert slope from 5 to 10%. Increasing the distance between weirs increases the TI_ave in the pool. In Model B with S₀ = 10% and q = 0.3 m²/s, the TI_ave in the pool increases from 51.8 to 63.7% as the distance between weirs increases from L/B = 0.61 to L/B = 0.183.

Fig. 26

Turbulent intensities variations of average turbulent intensities (TI_ave) as a function of q, a: L/B = 0.61; S₀ = 10% b: L/B = 0.61; S₀ = 5% c: L/B = 1.22; S₀ = 10% d: L/B = 1.22; S₀ = 5% e: L/B = 1.83; S₀ = 10% f: L/B = 1.83; S₀ = 5%

3.5 Energy Dissipation

To facilitate the passage of various target species through the pool of fishways, it is necessary to pay attention to the energy dissipation of the flow and to keep the flow velocity in the pool slow. The average volumetric energy dissipation (k) in the pool is calculated using the following basic formula:

$$k = \frac{{\rho gQS_{0} }}{BH}$$

(16)

where ρ is the water density, and H is the average water depth of the pool. The change in k versus Q for all models at two bottom slopes, S₀ = 5%, and S₀ = 10%, is shown in Fig. 27. Like the results of Yagci [8] and Kupferschmidt and Zhu [26], at a constant bottom slope, the energy dissipation in the pool increases with increasing discharge. The trend of change in k as a function of Q from the present study at a bottom gradient of S₀ = 5% is also consistent with the results of Kupferschmidt and Zhu [26] for the fishway with rock weir. The only difference between the results is the geometry of the fishway and the combination of boulders instead of a solid wall. Comparison of the models shows that the conventional model has lower energy dissipation than the rectangular labyrinth for a given discharge. Also, increasing the distance between weirs decreases the volumetric energy dissipation for each model with the same bed slope. Increasing the slope of the bottom leads to an increase in volumetric energy dissipation, and an opening in the weir leads to a decrease in volumetric energy dissipation for both models. Therefore, as a guideline for volumetric energy dissipation, if the value within the pool is too high, the increased distance of the weir, the decreased slope of the bed, or the creation of an opening in the weir would decrease the volumetric dissipation rate.

Fig. 27

Volumetric energy dissipation rate k versus Q with power fitted curves for each bed slope

To evaluate the energy dissipation inside the pool, the general method of energy difference in two sections can use:

$$\varepsilon = \frac{{E_{1} - E_{2} }}{{E_{1} }}$$

(17)

where ε is the energy dissipation rate, and E₁ and E₂ are the specific energies in Sects. 1 and 2, respectively. The distance between Sects. 1 and 2 is the same. (L is the distance between two upstream and downstream weirs.) Figure 28 shows the changes in ε relative to q (flow per unit width). The rectangular labyrinth weir (Model B) has a higher energy dissipation rate than the conventional weir (Model A) at a constant bottom gradient. For example, at S₀ = 5%, L/B = 0.61, and q = 0.08 m³/s.m, the energy dissipation rate in Model A (conventional weir) was 0.261. In Model B (rectangular labyrinth weir), however, it was 0.338 (22.75% increase). For each model, the energy dissipation rate within the pool increases as the slope of the bottom increases. For Model B with L/B = 1.83 and q = 0.178 m³/s.m, the energy dissipation rate at S₀ = 5% and 10% is 0.305 and 0.358, respectively (14.8% increase). Figure 29 shows an orifice’s effect on the pools’ energy dissipation rate. With an orifice in the weir, both models’ energy dissipation rates decreased. Thus, the reduction in energy dissipation rate varied from 7.32 to 9.48% for Model A and from 8.46 to 10.57 for Model B.

Fig. 28

Energy dissipation rate (ε) versus q. a: S₀ = 5% b: S₀ = 10%

Fig. 29

Energy dissipation rate (ε) versus q. a: Model A b: Model B

4 Discussion

This study consisted of entirely of numerical analysis. Although this study was limited to two weirs, the hydraulic performance and flow characteristics in a pooled fishway are highlighted by the rectangular labyrinth weir and its comparison with the conventional straight weir. The study compared the numerical simulations with laboratory experiments in terms of surface profiles, velocity vectors, and flow characteristics in a fish ladder pool. The results indicate agreement between the numerical and laboratory data, supporting the reliability of the numerical model in capturing the observed phenomena.

When the configuration of the weir changes to a rectangular labyrinth weir, the flow characteristics, the maximum and minimum area, and even the location of each hydraulic parameter change compared to a conventional weir. In the rectangular labyrinth weir, the flow is gradually directed to the sides as it passes the weir. This increases the velocity at the sides of the channel [21]. Therefore, the high-velocity area is located on the sides. In the downstream apex of the weir, the flow velocity is low, and this area may be suitable for swimming target fish. However, no significant change in velocity was observed at the conventional weir within the fish ladder. This resulted in an average increase in TKE of 32% and an average increase in TI of about 17% compared to conventional weirs.

In addition, there is a slight difference in the flow regime for both weir configurations. In addition, the rectangular labyrinth weir has a higher energy dissipation rate for a given discharge and constant bottom slope than the conventional weir. By reducing the distance between the weirs, this becomes even more intense. Finally, the presence of an orifice in both configurations of the weir increased the flow velocity at the orifice and in the middle of the pool, reducing the highest TKE value and increasing the values of TI within the pool of the fish ladder. This resulted in a reduction in volumetric energy dissipation for both weir configurations.

The results of this study will help the reader understand the direct effects of the governing geometric parameters on the hydraulic characteristics of a fishway with a pool and weir. However, due to the limited configurations of the study, further investigation is needed to evaluate the position of the weir’s crest on the flow direction and the difference in flow characteristics when combining boulders instead of a solid wall for this type of labyrinth weir [26]. In addition, hydraulic engineers and biologists must work together to design an effective fishway with rectangular labyrinth configurations. The migration habits of the target species should be considered when designing the most appropriate design [27]. Parametric studies and field observations are recommended to determine the perfect design criteria.

The current study focused on comparing a rectangular labyrinth weir with a conventional straight weir. Further research can explore other weir configurations, such as variations in crest position, different shapes of labyrinth weirs, or the use of boulders instead of solid walls. This would help understand the influence of different geometric parameters on hydraulic characteristics.

5 Conclusions

A new layout of the weir was evaluated, namely a rectangular labyrinth weir compared to a straight weir in a pool and weir system. The differences between the weirs were highlighted, particularly how variations in the geometry of the structures, such as the shape of the weir, the spacing of the weir, the presence of an opening at the weir, and the slope of the bottom, affect the hydraulics within the structures. The main findings of this study are as follows:

• The calculated dimensionless discharge (Q_t*) confirmed three different flow regimes: when the corresponding range of Q_t* is smaller than 0.6, the regime of plunging flow occurs for values of L/B = 1.83. (L: distance of the weir; B: channel width). When the corresponding range of Q_t* is greater than 0.5, transitional flow occurs at L/B = 1.22. On the other hand, if Q_t* is greater than 1, the streaming flow is at values of L/B = 0.61.

• For the conventional weir and the rectangular labyrinth weir with the plunging flow, it can be assumed that the discharge (Q) is proportional to 1.56 and 1.47h, respectively (h: water depth above the weir). This information is useful for estimating the discharge based on water depth in practical applications.

• In the rectangular labyrinth weir, the high-velocity zone is located on the side walls between the top of the weir and the channel wall. A high-velocity variation within short distances of the weir. Low velocity occurs within the downstream apex of the weir. This area may be suitable for swimming target fish.

• As the distance between weirs increased, the zone of maximum velocity increased. However, the zone of low speed decreased. The prevailing maximum velocity for a rectangular labyrinth weir at L/B = 0.61, 1.22, and 1.83 was 1.46, 1.65, and 1.84 m/s, respectively. The low mean velocities for these distances were 0.27, 0.44, and 0.72 m/s, respectively. This finding highlights the importance of weir spacing in determining the flow characteristics within the fishway.

• The presence of an orifice in the weir increased the flow velocity at the orifice and in the middle of the pool, especially in a conventional weir. The increase ranged from 7.7 to 12.48%.

• For a given bottom slope, in a conventional weir, the highest values of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) are uniformly distributed in the upstream part of the weir in the cross section of the channel. In contrast, for the rectangular labyrinth weir, the highest TKE values were concentrated on the sides of the pool between the crest of the weir and the channel wall. The highest TKE value for the conventional and the rectangular labyrinth weir was 0.224 and 0.278 J/kg, respectively, at the highest bottom slope (S₀ = 10%).

• For a given discharge, bottom slope, and weir spacing, the average values of TI are higher for the rectangular labyrinth weir than for the conventional weir. At the highest discharge, the average range of turbulence intensity (TI) for the conventional and rectangular labyrinth weirs was between 24 and 45% and 15% and 62%, respectively. This reveals that the rectangular labyrinth weir may generate more turbulent flow conditions within the fishway.

• For a given discharge and constant bottom slope, the rectangular labyrinth weir has a higher energy dissipation rate than the conventional weir (22.75 and 34.86%).

• Increasing the distance between weirs decreased volumetric energy dissipation. However, increasing the gradient increased volumetric energy dissipation. The presence of an opening in the weir resulted in a decrease in volumetric energy dissipation for both model types.