1. Introduction
Although the development and utilization of hydropower resources in China has reached 55.6%, it is far below the average development and utilization level of 80% in developed countries. In order to catch up with and surpass developed countries, reduce carbon emissions, and achieve carbon neutralization, it is necessary to vigorously build water conservancy and hydropower projects [1,2]. As the regulating throat of water conservancy and hydropower projects, the gate can play an important role in flood control, silt reduction, power generation and water resources allocation only if it is able to be opened and closed flexibly. The spatial effect of the gate is very strong. Although the plane system method has the advantages of a clear mechanical concept and simple calculation, the overall structure is often too safe and dangerous to fully reflect the real working state of the gate. The plane system method cannot be used to analyze the static stability, dynamic stability, welds, and bolts of the overall structure of the gate, nor can it be used to analyze the low temperature and low cycle fatigue failure of gate in severe cold environments [3]; thus, the plane system method cannot be used to analyze the gate structure to meet the unity of safety and economy. China’s gate design code has been revised seven times in the past 60 years, and adopts the plane system method, which lags behind the national codes [4,5,6,7] of the United States, Europe and other national codes [8,9,10,11,12,13] as well as scientific research progress [14,15,16,17]. In 1977, Lanzhou University used the finite element method to analyze the gate structure for the first time in China [18]; however, the analysis program compiled was not universal. In 1991, Jin Yahe et al. used SAP5 software to analyze the structure of a radial gate, although the analysis process was not described and the analysis results were not compared [19]. In 2012, Xi Xiaoya et al. used ANSYS12.0 software to analyze the safety of radial gate, and did not provide a specific modeling and analysis process either [20]. In 2022, Yao Jiahui and others used ANSYS18.0 software to analyze the deformation of the miter gate, although they did not provide their structural analysis principles [21]. Up to now, the seventh edition of the gate design code [22,23,24,25,26,27,28] has stated the spatial system method; however, it has not clearly provided the specific application standards and relevant principles, which restricts the transition process of gate structural analysis from the plane system method to the spatial system method.
The spatial system method (SSM) has a perfect theoretical basis in structural analysis, and there is an urgent need for it in practice, which is easily recognized and accepted subjectively. At present, the SSM is used to analyze gate structure, and almost all such analyses are directly transformed from geometric models to the finite element model. When the final analysis results are provided, the structure geometric modeling of the gate, element type selection, mesh generation-specific processes, and corresponding principles such as restraint and load application [29] are precisely the processes that determine the final analysis results. Only by clarifying the above process through clear quantitative and operable normative principles can we ensure the authenticity of the geometric model of the gate structure, the correctness of the finite element model, the appropriateness of the boundary conditions, and the rationality of the analysis results. With the progress of science and technology, the continuous maturity and improvement of finite element theory and calculation software, and the promulgation and implementation of the general rules for finite element analysis of mechanical product structures [30], the time is ripe to systematically study the analysis principles of gate SSM. The formulation of quantitative and practical analysis principles will solve the key technical problems that restrict the transition of gate structural analysis from the plane system method to the SSM, enrich and improve the gate specifications that have been adopted for 60 years and continue to be designed based on the plane system method after seven revisions, promote the development and progress of the overall design level of gates at home and abroad, achieve the goal of overall analysis of gate structures, support the whole process CAE (Computer Aided Engineering) design of gate structures, improve the quality and efficiency of gate design, explore new gate structures, verify the safety of gate structures in service, and repeat and determine the process and causes of gate accidents [31]. Therefore, it is necessary and urgent to study the analysis principle of the gate SSM (mainly the finite element method), and it has good prospects for application.
2. Gate Structure Composition and Research Method
The commonly used gate types in water conservancy and hydropower projects mainly include plane gates (Figure 1a) and radial gates (Figure 1b). The main difference between the two shape structures is that the radial gate panel has a certain curvature and arm structure, meaning that a plane gate can be regarded as a special case in which the curvature of the radial gate panel structure is zero. A radial gate is mainly composed of a panel, arm, support hinge, and other structures, which can be regarded as composed of plate (panel structure), beam (main beam structure, secondary beam structure, top beam structure, bottom beam structure, side beam structure), and column (arm structure) through welding or bolt connection. In order to ensure the universality of the analysis principle, the analysis principle of radial gate structure SSM is studied here.
Only when the spatial system analysis principles of each component of the gate structure are clearly quantified and feasible is it possible to ensure the rationality and accuracy of the overall structure analysis principles. The idea of division and entirety is utilized, and the reasonable SSM analysis principles of panel structure, beam structure, and arm structure are respectively explored. The method verified through the theoretical analytical solution is used to ensure the authenticity of geometric modeling, the appropriateness of element types, the rationality of grid division, and the accuracy of constraints and loads when the SSM is used to analyze the divisional structure. On the other hand, the analysis results of the overall structure are verified by comparison with the prototype test to ensure the rationality and accuracy of the gate structure analysis by the finite element method.
3. Analysis Principle of SSM for Gate Structure
In view of the many advantages of SSM, scholars and designers have used various types of finite element software to analyze different gate structures. However, different personnel have different professional knowledge, software operation ability, and understanding of the actual project, resulting in greater randomness and fuzziness in the process of geometric modeling, element type selection, mesh generation, constraints, and load application, even for the same project, Different people often obtain different results using the same software and which cannot be repeated, arousing the doubts of scholars and designers. If the accuracy and efficiency of SSM cannot be guaranteed, the analysis loses its significance. The basic process of using SSM (especially the finite element method) to analyze the gate structure includes the specific steps of establishing a geometric model (where the workload accounts for 30–40% of the whole process), meshing (40–50%), applying loads and constraints (4%), solving the model (2%), and processing the results (4%); these steps are closely linked. Only when the gate geometric model is established reasonably and perfectly can high-quality grid division be carried out smoothly. Only high-quality meshes can lead to high-precision analysis results. The finite element analysis of a gate is a systematic project. Only by grasping the overall situation can the advantages of high precision and high efficiency of the finite element method be brought into play.
3.1. Authenticity of Geometric Modeling
Geometric modeling is the basis of finite element analysis. Only by ensuring the authenticity of the geometric model can we ensure the accuracy of the analysis results. There are two commonly used gate geometric modeling methods at this stage: (1) directly using 3D modeling software, such as PowerChina Kunming survey and Design Institute using Autodesk Inventor software [32], Anhui Water Resources and Hydropower Survey and Design Institute using Bentley software [33], the Design Institute of the Standing Committee and the Design Institute of the Yellow River Commission using CATIA software [34,35], and the Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Bureau using SolidWorks software [36]; (2) for the geometric modeling module in the finite element software, we can take the large general finite element software ANSYS as an example. The geometric modeling methods include GUI (graphical user interface) and APDL (ANSYS parametric design language). The GUI operation method is simple and easy to learn, although the modification of complex models is cumbersome and the workload of repeated operations is large. Due to the complexity of the gate structure, three-dimensional modeling software is directly used to establish the gate geometric model. At present, the mesh generation function of the software cannot directly mesh the gate geometric model, and often returns a low-quality finite element model; such analysis results can hardly be used for design. (3) The geometric model established by 3D software is directly imported into the finite element software to generate the finite element model. Unfortunately, the finite element model is often distorted due to the loss of detailed structural information during mesh generation.
After a great deal of engineering practice [37], the geometric modeling and meshing of the gate structure directly using the APDL method can make up for the shortcomings of the GUI modeling method, overcome the loss of detailed structural information in the process of model transformation of 3D modeling software and the problem of repeated meshes in professional meshing software (such as HyperMesh), and adapt to the working mode of “Design—Analysis—Modify Design—Redesign— Modify Reanalysis” of the gate. Furthermore, it can improve the efficiency of geometric modeling and the quality of mesh generation.
3.2. Appropriateness of Finite Element Type
Whether the element type is appropriate or not directly determines the accuracy and efficiency of finite element analysis. The selection of the element type is based on the basic principle of ensuring that the selected element can completely and accurately simulate the mechanical properties of the actual structure under load. Only when fully familiar with the analysis problems and element types can the appropriate element type be selected in order to simulate the actual structure of the project. The gate is a spatial thin-walled structure. When the finite element method is used for analysis, the finite element model of the gate structure can generally adopt the following types (Table 1). In view of the complexity of the gate structure and a large amount of engineering practice [37], the full spatial thin-walled structure (mode III) can flexibly simulate the real structure of the gate.
3.3. Rationality of Finite Element Mesh Generation
When the geometric model and element type of the gate structure are determined, the number of element grids becomes a key factor affecting the accuracy and efficiency of the analysis. When the number of element grids is small, increasing the number of element grids can significantly improve the accuracy of analysis and make the numerical solution converge to the exact solution; however, the workload increases somewhat. When the number of element grids is increased to a certain extent, the accuracy of analysis is not significantly improved, the workload increases greatly, and the accuracy of analysis can even be reduced due to the accumulation of calculation errors [38].
In gate structure analysis, how to divide the mesh to ensure the high accuracy of the calculation results without greatly increasing the workload is a difficult problem for engineering designers. Although there are many kinds of automatic mesh generation software, due to the connection between different software the mesh of automatic mesh generation software often cannot meet the requirements of computational accuracy. In order to obtain a high-quality mesh, it is often necessary to perform this step manually. General principles to be followed for mesh generation include the following. (1) the mesh generation should have a global idea and reasonably plan the mesh relationship between adjacent structures. (2) The geometric outline of the structure should be retained for mesh generation in order to truly reflect the geometric characteristics of the structure. (3) The parts with large changes in structure, curvature, and load or connections of different materials should be refined. (4) The size of adjacent elements should be smoothly transited, and there should be corresponding element transitions between dense grids to avoid large difference in mass and stiffness of adjacent elements. (5) The number of element grids should be consistent with the type of analysis results. In static displacement analysis, the number of element grids can be less, while in static stress analysis, the number of element grids should be a little more. When analyzing dynamic characteristics and dynamic response, the number of element grids should be more [39]. Higher order modes require more mesh elements than lower order modes. (6) When the structure is symmetrical, the number of grids should be as symmetrical as possible. (7) The order of meshing affects the number of nodes and elements formed [40]. Although various kinds of finite element analysis software include the function of bandwidth and wavefront optimization, these should be meshed according to the order of structural force transmission. (8) Mapping grid division should be adopted as far as possible. Due to free mesh division, abnormal element shapes may occur, such as too large or too small internal angles of the element, and long and thin element shapes. A poor quality mesh causes large local structural errors, which may have a significant impact on the overall analysis results. Therefore, the overall mesh quality of the structure should be guaranteed to the greatest extent.
Whether the grid division is reasonable, that is, whether the grid division quality is the most intuitive performance, is determined by whether the grid geometry (Figure 2) is regular. A high quality finite element model can be obtained by reasonable mesh generation, allowing high-precision analysis results to be obtained. In order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the finite element analysis results, it is necessary to verify the mesh independence and to evaluate or eliminate the mesh discretization error in the analysis process. The basic principle is to gradually encrypt the mesh until the calculation results do not change after adding the mesh. At the same time, the most reasonable number of element meshes can be determined by comparison with the theoretical analytical solution.
3.4. Accuracy of Constraints and Loads
Only by ensuring that accurate constraints and loads are applied can the accurate stiffness matrix and equilibrium equation of the overall structure be obtained, allowing accurate analysis results to be obtained. Only through familiarity with the constraint type and element type of the gate structure in the actual project is it possible to ensure that the constraints imposed on the model are consistent with those in project. In practical engineering, when the gate is closed to retain water, the bottom of the panel is equivalent to directly contacting the gate bottom plate under the action of water pressure, and the line displacement of the bottom of the panel is generally directly constrained in the finite element analysis. At the side beam of the gate, the vertical flow direction and the linear displacement along the flow direction are directly constrained in order to simulate the constraint effect of the side pier on the gate. No linear displacement is allowed at the gate hinge. The linear displacement in three directions and the angular displacement in two directions are constrained, and only the angular displacement that can rotate around the hinge is relaxed. When the gate is opened instantaneously, the restraint at the bottom of the panel disappears, while the restraint at the side beam and hinge continues to exists. At this time, the restraint effect of the hoist rod (hydraulic hoist) or steel wire rope (winch hoist) should be considered.
When the water retaining gate is closed, the load borne by the gate is mainly due to the water load and self-weight. The hydrostatic pressure changes linearly along the water depth. The SFGRAD command in the software is used to apply the surface load gradient, and the self-weight is applied by the ACEL command. In case of instantaneous opening, the load is mainly due to the hydrostatic pressure, self-weight, and gate opening force. The hydrostatic pressure and self-weight are applied in the same way, and the gate opening force is directly applied to the lifting structure in the form of a concentrated load.
4. Analysis Principle of Beam Structure
The gate structure is mainly composed of a plate structure, column structure, and beam structure through welding or bolt connection. The relevant research on the finite element analysis principles of gate column structure [38] and plate structure [41] is detailed in the literature, and is not repeated here. The gate beam structure generally adopts the solid web structure, in which I-shaped and box section beams are the most common. According to the research results, when the element type is selected, the number of element grids becomes the key to determining the accuracy and efficiency of the analysis. Due to the structural type of the gate, the stability of the beam structure is generally not specially calculated [42], and only the strength and stiffness of the beam most concerned in the engineering design are analyzed by means of verification with the theoretical calculation to determine the most reasonable number of element grids in the finite element analysis of the gate beam structure.
4.1. Reasonable Finite Element Mesh Number of I-Beam
According to statistics [43], the length of common beams in gate structures is generally between 10.0 m and 20.0 m. The deflection and normal stress of 10.0 m, 12.0 m, 14.0 m, 16.0 m, 18.0 m, and 20.0 m simply supported I-beams under uniformly distributed load (600 kN/m) are compared and analyzed by theoretical calculation and numerical analysis methods, respectively. The section size, mid-span deflection and error, and mid-span normal stress and error of the I-beams are shown in Table 2.
The shell element (shell 181) is used to establish the I-shaped beam model (see Figure 3). First, in order to save space, and second because the analysis results are similar, we take a beam length of 20.0 m as an example according to the conclusions in the literature [41]. The flange width is 1.40 m, the reasonable mesh number is 6, the web height is 1.80 m, the reasonable mesh number is 8, and the beam length of 20.0 m is divided into 40 grids. The finite element analysis results when the element size is 0.5 m are shown in Figure 4.
According to Figure 4, when the shell 181 element is used to simulate the I-section beam, the mid-span deflection is 0.064 m and the mid-span normal stress is 284.0 MPa. Compared with Table 2, the absolute error values of numerical solution and theoretical solution are 0.36% and 1.23%, respectively. The shell 181 element is used to analyze the mid-span deflection and normal stress of 10.0 m, 12.0 m, 14.0 m, 16.0 m, 18.0 m, and 20.0 m simply supported I-beams under uniformly distributed load (600 kN/m). The relationship between the mid-span deflection and normal stress error and the number of element grids is shown in Figure 5. The calculation error in Figure 5 is based on the calculation results of the material mechanics method. The relative error between the numerical analysis results and the theoretical results is compared with the relative error of the mid-span deflection and normal stress of the simply supported I-shaped beam at both ends. The specific values of section size, length, midspan deflection, and normal stress of the I-shaped beam are shown in Table 2.
It can be seen from Figure 5 that when the shell element is used to simulate the beam structure, when the mesh numbers of the flange width and web height meet the requirements of a reasonable mesh number, only the element mesh number in the beam length direction is changed. When the element mesh number is 2, the errors of the mid-span deflection and normal stress reach about 35% and 50% respectively. With the increase in the number of element grids, the analysis error decreases gradually. When the number of element grids is greater than 10, the error of mid-span deflection and normal stress is reduced to about 1%. In order to coordinate the relationship between calculation accuracy and efficiency, a reasonable number of grids of 40 to 60 can be used, meaning that the element size is 0.16 m to 0.5 m.
4.2. Reasonable Finite Element Mesh Number of Box Beam
Similarly, the mid-span deflection and normal stress of 10.0 m, 12.0 m, 14.0 m, 16.0 m, 18.0 m, and 20.0 m simply supported box beams under uniformly distributed loading (600 kN/m) are compared and analyzed by theoretical calculation and numerical analysis. The section size, mid-span deflection and error, mid-span normal stress, and error of the box beams are shown in Table 3.
The box beam model is established using the shell element (shell 181) (see Figure 6). Similarly, taking the beam length of 20.0 m as an example, according to the conclusion of the literature [41] the flange width is 1.40 m, the reasonable grid number is 6, the web height is 1.80 m, the reasonable grid number is 8, the beam length is 20.0 m, and the mesh number is 40. The finite element analysis results when the element size is 0.5 m are shown in Figure 7.
According to Figure 7, when the shell 181 element is used to simulate the box section beam, the mid-span deflection is 0.072 m and the mid-span normal stress is 269.0 MPa. Compared with Table 3, the absolute error values of the numerical solution and theoretical solution are 1.37% and 0.69%, respectively. The shell 181 element is used to analyze the mid span deflection and normal stress of 10.0 m, 12.0 m, 14.0 m, 16.0 m, 18.0 m, and 20.0 m simply supported box beams under uniformly distributed loading (600 kN/m). The relationship between the mid-span deflection and normal stress error and the number of element grids is shown in Figure 8.
It can be seen from Figure 8 that when the shell element is used to simulate the beam structure and the mesh number of flange width and web height meet the requirements of reasonable mesh number, only the element mesh number in the beam length direction is changed. When the element mesh number is 2, the errors of the mid-span deflection and normal stress reach about 35% and 42%, respectively. With the increase in the number of element grids, the analysis error decreases gradually. When the number of element grids is greater than 10, the error of the mid-span deflection and normal stress is reduced to about 2%. In order to coordinate the relationship between calculation accuracy and efficiency, a reasonable number of grids of 40 to 60 can be used, meaning that the element size is 0.16 m to 0.5 m.
5. Verification of Prototype Test
Taking the radial gate of a water control project as an example, the floor elevation is 209.0 m and the prototype test water level is 266.0 m. The space finite element method and prototype test are used to analyze it. According to the design drawing of the radial gate, the geometric model and finite element model established by APDL are shown in Figure 9. The radial gate structure has a width and height of 8.0 m and 9.0 m, respectively, a radius of 18.0 m, and a working head of 41.0 m. The gate structure material is 16Mn steel, the elastic modulus is 2.06 × 1011 Pa, the material density is 7850 kg/m3, and the Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. According to the research results of the analysis principles of gate SSM [29,38,41], a shell element (shell 181) is selected for simulation and a mapped mesh is adopted. The structure of the radial gate is analyzed using ANSYS 18.1 software. The gate is closed for water retaining, the bottom of the panel is equivalent to directly contacting with the gate bottom plate under the action of water pressure, and the line displacement of the bottom of the panel is generally directly constrained in the finite element analysis. At the side beam of the gate, the vertical flow direction and the linear displacement along the flow direction are directly constrained to simulate the constraint effect of the side pier on the gate. No linear displacement is allowed at the gate hinge. The linear displacement in three directions and the angular displacement in two directions are constrained, and only the angular displacement that can rotate around the hinge is relaxed. The load borne by the gate mainly comes from the water load and self-weight. The hydrostatic pressure changes linearly along with the water depth. The SFGRAD command in the software is used to apply the surface load gradient, and the self-weight is applied by ACEL command. The number of elements and nodes are 46,558 and 46,826, respectively. The strength and stiffness analysis results of the gate structure are shown in Figure 10.
In order to verify the analysis results of the SSM, a prototype test is used to measure the displacement and stress of each component of the radial gate structure during the water retaining state. The layout of the gate measuring points should follow the principle of using the minimum measuring points to reflect the true structural state as much as possible [44]. The prototype test of the radial gate was conducted from 20 to 29 April 2021. The characteristics of the measuring instrument for radial gate stress and displacement are shown in Table 4.
The displacement measurement technology for the radial gate prototype test is difficult. Due to the limitations of site conditions and measurement accuracy, traditional measurement methods such as theodolite and total station are not easy to operate and locate. This measurement adopts a three-dimensional photogrammetry system. Three-dimensional photogrammetry is a displacement measurement technology with high precision and accurate positioning, and the uncertainty of photogrammetric instruments is less than 5%. The static displacement measurement and analysis results of the radial gate are shown in Table 5, and the finite element analysis results are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15.
A wireless dynamic strain tester (DH5908l) was used for the radial gate stress test, with a resolution of 1 με, where zero drift is 3 με/h. The sensitivity coefficient is 2.0, the material of the strain gauge is Q235B, the elastic modulus is 2.06 × 1011 MPa, the Poisson’s ratio is 0.28, and the resistance is 120 Ω connected by a 1/4 bridge. Due to space limitation, only the measured stress and finite element analysis results for the radial gate are provided; see Table 6.
As the finite element method is an approximate calculation method, it can only be improved from the key steps that determine its accuracy and efficiency to ensure that the analysis results are as close to the real solution as possible. On the other hand, there are inevitably measurement errors and truncation errors in the process of various test instruments, data acquisition, and data analysis during prototype testing. It can be seen from Table 5 that the analysis results of the gate structure according to the analysis principles are close to the prototype test results; based on the prototype test results, the maximum absolute error of displacement is 0.58 mm and the maximum relative error of stress is 9.19%, which strongly verifies the rationality, correctness, and practicality of the analysis principles of the gate SSM.
6. Conclusions
Based on the idea of part and whole, the analysis principle of SSM for gate structure is studied using the method of combining theoretical calculation, finite element analysis, and prototype testing. The specific and practical analysis principles in the process of geometric modeling, element type selection, mesh generation, constraints. and load application of SSM for a gate structure are presented. Our main conclusions are as follows:
(1) On the basis of the finite element analysis principle of the gate arm structure and the panel structure, the finite element analysis principle of a gate beam structure is studied and the appropriate element type and reasonable element mesh number for the SSM analysis of the gate beam structure are determined.
(2) The rationality and accuracy of the analysis principle of the gate SSM are verified by the prototype test.
(3) The key technical problems that restrict the transition of gate structure analysis from the plane system method to the SSM are preliminarily solved. The principles ensuring the authenticity of gate geometric modeling, the appropriateness of the choice of element type, the rationality of mesh generation, and the accuracy of constraints and load application are provided, laying a foundation for improving the quality and efficiency of future gate design.
Conceptualization, Z.W.; Data curation, X.Z.; Formal analysis, S.L. and L.C.; Investigation, F.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Finite element mesh generation of gate panel. (a) Reasonable meshing. (b) Unreasonable meshing.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Shell element simulating I-section beam. (a) Geometric model of I-beam, (b) Finite element model of I-beam.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Simulation results of I-section beam by shell element. (a) Deflection at midspan (unit: m), (b) Normal stress at midspan (unit: Pa).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Relationship between calculation error of mid-span deflection and stress of I-shaped beams with different lengths and the number of element grids. (a) The relationship between the calculation error of mid span deflection and the number of element grids, (b) The relationship between the calculation error of normal stress in midspan and the number of element grids.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Shell element simulating box section beam. (a) Geometric model of box beam, (b) Finite element model of box beam.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Results of shell element simulating box beam. (a) Deflection at midspan (unit: m), (b) Normal stress at midspan (unit: Pa).
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Relationship between calculation error of mid-span deflection and stress of box-shaped beams with different lengths and the number of element grids. (a) The relationship between the calculation error of mid span deflection and the number of element grids, (b) The relationship between the calculation error of normal stress in midspan and the number of element grids.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Geometric model and finite element model of radial gate. (a) Geometric model, (b) Finite element model.
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Displacement and equivalent stress of radial gate. (a) Displacement (unit: m), (b) Equivalent stress (unit: Pa).
Enlarge this image.Figure 11. Displacement of the main beam structure. (a) Displacement of main beam structure in water flow direction, (b) Displacement of main beam structure in vertical direction, (c) Displacement of main beam structure in lateral direction.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. Displacement of main longitudinal beam structure. (a) Displacement of main longitudinal beam structure in water flow direction, (b) Displacement of main longitudinal beam structure in vertical direction, (c) Displacement of main longitudinal beam structure in lateral direction.
Enlarge this image.Figure 13. Displacement of secondary longitudinal beam structure. (a) Displacement of secondary longitudinal beam structure in water flow direction, (b) Displacement of secondary longitudinal beam structure in vertical direction, (c) Displacement of secondary longitudinal beam structure in lateral direction.
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Displacement of panel structure. (a) Displacement of panel structure in water flow direction, (b) Displacement of panel structure in vertical direction, (c) Displacement of panel structure in lateral direction.
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Displacement of arm structure. (a) Displacement of arm structure in water flow direction, (b) Displacement of arm structure in vertical direction, (c) Displacement of arm structure in lateral direction.
Type of finite element for gate analysis.
| Modeling Method | Gate structure Composition | Element Type | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Panel structure | Shell element | Easy to build geometric model | Model is too simplified, the calculation accuracy is low, and the connection between different element types is complex. |
| Beam structure | Beam element | |||
| Arm structure | Beam element | |||
| II | Panel structure, beam structure and arm structure | Beam element | Realistic gate geometry | Workload of geometric modeling and mesh generation is large, which cannot truly reflect the mechanical response of the gate. |
| III | Panel structure, beam structure and arm structure | Shell element | Truly presents the geometric structure of the gate and truly reflects the mechanical response of the gate. | Workload of geometric modeling is relatively large |
Section dimensions and theoretical results for I-beams.
| Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section | I-beam | |||||
| Constraint | Simply supported at both ends | |||||
| Beam length (m) | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 |
| Lower flange width (m) | 0.80 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.35 | 1.40 |
| Thickness of lower flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.034 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Upper flange width (m) | 0.80 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.35 | 1.40 |
| Thickness of upper flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.034 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Web height (m) | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.40 | 1.50 | 1.60 | 1.80 |
| Web thickness (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.034 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Midspan deflection (m) | 0.027 | 0.033 | 0.040 | 0.048 | 0.057 | 0.065 |
| Midspan normal stress (MPa) | 264.4 | 275.1 | 283.4 | 276.0 | 277.1 | 287.5 |
| Midspan bending moment (kN·m) | 7500 | 10,800 | 14,700 | 19,200 | 24,300 | 30,000 |
Sectional dimensions and calculation results of box beams.
| Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section | Box beam | |||||
| Constraint | Simply supported at both ends | |||||
| Beam length (m) | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 |
| Section width of box beam (m) | 1.00 | 1.15 | 1.25 | 1.40 | 1.55 | 1.70 |
| Section height of box girder (m) | 0.80 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 1.20 | 1.35 | 1.50 |
| Wall thickness of upper flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Wall thickness of lower flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Wall thickness of front flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Wall thickness of rear flange (m) | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Midspan deflection (m) | 0.033 | 0.041 | 0.051 | 0.058 | 0.066 | 0.073 |
| Midspan normal stress (MPa) | 259.3 | 266.9 | 268.4 | 269.4 | 270.2 | 270.9 |
Parameters of radial gate structure stress and displacement measuring equipment.
| Texture of material | Q235B |
| Yield strength (MPa) | 235 |
| Resistance of strain gauge | 120 Ω |
| Uncertainty of instrument (με) | <5% ± 3 |
| Elastic modulus (GPa) | 206 |
| Model of strain gauge | WFLA-6-11 |
| Treatment method of gate surface | Grinding and polishing |
| Instrument resolution (με) | 1 |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.28 |
| Installation method of strain gauge | Paste |
| Instrument model | DH5908L |
| Frequency of data acquisition (Hz) | 200 |
Comparison between displacements results of SSM and prototype test.
| Number | Position | Analysis Method | Flow Direction (mm) | Vertical Direction (mm) | Lateral (mm) | Illustration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Middle main beam | SSM | 1.88 | 0.314 | 0.082 |
|
| Prototype test | 1.30 | 0.80 | 0 | |||
| 2 | Main longitudinal beam | SSM | 1.56 | 0.16 | 0.35 |
|
| Prototype test | 1.50 | 0.60 | −0.4 | |||
| 3 | Secondary longitudinal beam | SSM | 1.88 | 0.31 | 0.35 |
|
| Prototype test | 1.60 | 1.10 | 0 | |||
| 4 | Panel | SSM | 2.47 | 0.74 | 0.048 |
|
| Prototype test | 1.80 | 0.70 | −0.10 | |||
| 5 | Arm | SSM | 1.38 | 0.63 | 1.03 |
|
| Prototype test | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.70 |
Stress results.
| Number | Position | Stress | Results of Prototype Tests (MPa) | Results of SSM (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Web structure of longitudinal beam | Vertical direction | 4.68 | 4.53 |
| 2 | Flange structure of longitudinal beam | Vertical direction | −19.35 | −20.60 |
| 3 | Connecting flange of lower arm and main beam | Arm direction | −53.55 | −54.70 |
| 4 | Web structure of lower main beam | Horizontal direction | −6.43 | −7.20 |
| 5 | Panel structure | Horizontal direction | 38.10 | 34.60 |
| 6 | Arm structure | Arm direction | −65.60 | −59.10 |
References
1. Huang, Q.; Liu, D.; Wang, X.; Yang, Y. Analysis of causes of China has the most dams in the world. J. Hydroelectr. Eng.; 2021; 40, pp. 35-45.
2. Zhang, B. Hydropower development, electric power transformation and energy revolution in China. J. Hydroelectr. Eng.; 2020; 39, pp. 69-78.
3. Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J. Advances and developing trends in research of large hydraulic steel gates. J. Hydroelectr. Eng.; 2017; 36, pp. 1-18.
4. UACE. Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures: CECW-CE Engineer Manual 1110-2-584; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (UACE): Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
5. UACE. Design of Spillway Tainter Gates: CECW-ET Engineer Manual 1110-2-2702; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (UACE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
6. UACE. Vertical Lift Gates: CECW-ED Engineer Manual, 1110-2-2701; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (UACE): Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
7.
8. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Slope Design of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering (L386-2007); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
9. National Development and Reform Commission of the people’s Republic of China. Code for Slope Design of Hydropower and Hydraulic Engineering (DL/t5353-2006); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2006.
10. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Design of Concrete Gravity Dams (L319-2018); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
11. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Design of Concrete Arch Dams (L282-2018); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
12. Ministry of housing and urban rural development of the people’s Republic of China. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China Code for Design of Steel Structures (GB50017-2017); China Construction Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
13. Ministry of housing and urban rural development of the people’s Republic of China. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB50011-2010); China Construction Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2016.
14. Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Sun, D. Comparison and evaluation of design codes of hydraulic steel gates in China and America. J. Hydroelectr. Eng.; 2017; 36, pp. 78-89.
15. Zhang, W.; Yan, G.; Chen, F. Static and dynamic characteristics of high pressure radial gate and its flow-induced vibration. Hydro Sci. Eng.; 2016; 44, pp. 111-119.
16. Sehgal, C.K. Design Guidelines for pillway Gates. J. Hydraul. Eng.; 1996; 122, pp. 155-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1996)122:3(155)]
17. Li, K. Dynamic performance of water seals and fatigue failure probability updating of a hydraulic steel sluice gate. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.; 2016; 30, 04015082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000782]
18. Design Institute of the Fourth Engineering Bureau of Ministry of water and electricity, Department of mathematics and mechanics, Lanzhou University. Finite element method for stress analysis of radial steel gate. J. Lanzhou Univ.; 1977; 13, pp. 53-74.
19. Jin, Y.; Ding, J.; Zhou, J. Detection and evaluation of the safety of radial steel gate. J. Hydraul. Eng.; 1991; 22, pp. 47-53.
20. Xi, X.; Liu, H.; Ye, X.; Ke, M. Three dimensional finite element analysis and reliability of radial steel gate for Huazikou River sluice. Hydr. Sci. Eng.; 2012; pp. 36-41.
21. Yao, J.; Yang, G. Finite element analysis of solar radiation effect on miter gate. Port Waterw. Eng.; 2022; 51, pp. 116-121.
22. Research class of General Administration of water resources and hydropower construction. Code for Design of Steel Gates of Hydraulic Structures; Revolutionary Committee of Hanxi Water Conservancy survey and Design Institute: Beijing, China, 1971.
23. Ministry of Water Resources and Electric Power of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Design of Steel Gate of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering (DJ13-78); Electric Power Industry Press: Beijing, China, 1981.
24. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Design Specification for Steel Gates of Water and Hydropower Projects (L 74-95); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 1995.
25. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Design Specification for Steel Gates of Water and Hydropower Projects (L 74-2013); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2013.
26. National Energy Administration. Design Code for Steel Gate in Hydropower Projects (NB35055–2015); China Electric Power Press: Beijing, China, 2015.
27. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Design Specification for Steel Gates of Water and Hydropower Projects (L 74-2019); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2020.
28. Boronski. Deep Hole Gate of Hydraulic Structure; Lu, W.; Luo, C.; Translators,
29. Zhang, X.; Chen, L.; Wang, Z. APDL modeling method of hydraulic radial gate structure. J. Graph.; 2021; 42, pp. 271-278.
30. General Administration of quality supervision, inspection and Quarantine of the people’s Republic of China. General Rules for Finite Element Mechanical Analysis of Mechanical Product Structures (GB/t33582-107); China standards Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
31. Zhang, H.; Gu, X.; Hong, W.; Sheng, X.; Zheng, L.; Kong, C. Analysis of instability accident of radial gate in reservoir. Water Conserv. Tech. Superv.; 2021; 29, pp. 129-133.
32. Liao, Z.; Yang, X.; Ma, R.; Yu, J. Research on the construction of parametric standard model of three-dimensional radial and flat gate. Yunnan Water Power; 2013; 29, pp. 21-25.
33. Luo, W. Application of three-dimensional design and drawing technology of hydraulic structure based on Bentley platform. Water Resour. Plan. Des.; 2019; 26, pp. 111-115.
34. Wang, K.; Chen, Z.; Wang, D.; Wang, Q. Parametric modeling technology of steel gate based on CATIA. Yangtze River; 2016; 47, pp. 32-35.
35. Yang, S.; Guo, L.; Liu, Z. Overview on digital construction in water conservancy and hydropower engineering. J. Hydroelectr. Eng.; 2018; 37, pp. 75-84.
36. Liu, F. Application of 3D software in hydraulic metal structure manufacturing. Mech. Electr. Tech. Hydropower Stn.; 2017; 40, pp. 38-40.
37. Zhang, X.; Chen, L.; Zhou, W. Study on Finite Element Static and Dynamic Analysis of Radial Gate of Flushing Tunnel of Wuluwati Water Control Project; Yellow River Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd.: Zhengzhou, China, 2021.
38. Zhang, X.; Chen, L.; Yao, H. Research on patial Finite Element Analysis Principle of Radial Gate Arm structure. Water Power; 2021; 47, pp. 73-82.
39. Xu, X.; Yin, L. On fining standard of fem meshing used in high frequency structure response analysis. J. Vib. Shock; 2002; 21, pp. 54-55.
40. Zhu, C.; Zhang, W. Structural Mechanics (Volume II); Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
41. Zhang, X.; Yang, S.; Hou, Q. Spatial Finite Element Analysis Principle of Hydraulic Gate Panel structure. Water Power; 2021; 47, pp. 61-70.
42. Compilation group of Electromechanical Design Manual of Hydropower Station. Hydropower Station Electromechanical Design Manual Metal Structure (I); Water Resources and Electric Power Press: Beijing, China, 1988.
43. Editorial board of technical characteristics manual of steel gate and trash rack for water conservancy and hydropower projects. Technical Characteristics Manual of Steel Gate and Trash Rack in Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering; Hohai University Press: Nanjing, China, 2020.
44. Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Specification for Safety Inspection of Hydraulic Steel Gate and Hoist (L101-2014); China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.