为探究曲线型消力池内糙条联合梯形墩消能导流特性,采用正交试验方法,设计7因素3水平试验方案进行模型试验。引入消能率η、水面横比降变异系数C_v等指标对消能工的消能导流效果进行评价;通过对试验结果进行主效应方差分析和事后多重比较、对影响水流结构的因子进行量纲分析和多重回归分析,建立多因素影响的消能导流评价模型。研究结果表明:梯形墩间距Δζ直接影响水流能量耗散程度,糙条宽度b减小凹凸岸水位差效果显著;最优糙条联合梯形墩布置较无消能工,η提高9.75%,C_v降低0.718 4;η、C_v实测值与评价模型预测值的相对误差均低于10%,表明建立的预测模型可用于实际曲线型消力池消能导流效果预测。

[Objective] The centrifugal and inertial forces of discharge flow in curved stilling basins lead to the impact of the flow on the concave bank and water surface rise, and result in the formation of a significant transverse water surface gradient, thereby inducing hazards threatening the structural safety, including scouring and deepening of the concave bank and sediment deposition on the convex bank. To address these challenges, this study investigates the energy dissipation and diversion characteristics of a combined energy dissipator comprising rough strips and trapezoidal piers arranged within the stilling basin. This study aims to provide a systematically validated optimized design scheme and theoretical prediction tool for engineering applications addressing complex hydraulic problems. [Methods] Taking the TGZBL Reservoir in Xinjiang as the engineering background, a 1∶60 scale physical model was constructed following the gravity similarity criterion. The model consisted of four components: a straight approach channel, a diffusion section composed of an Ogee curve and a reverse curve segment, a main curved stilling basin section incorporating an arc segment, and a discharge channel. Water depths at 35 cross-sections were measured using 0.1 mm precision point gauges, while flow velocities at two-thirds the water depth beneath the surface were recorded at left (A), middle (C), and right (E) measurement points in key cross-sections. Evaluation metrics included the energy dissipation rate η based on the Bernoulli's equation and the coefficient of variation of the transverse water surface gradient C_v to quantify the dispersion degree and assess energy dissipation and flow diversion performance. An orthogonal experimental design was employed at the core of the study, with seven influencing factors selected, including the relative width of the rough strips (b), the angle between the rough strips and the cross-section (θ), the relative height of the rough strips (h₁), the height ratio of the rough strips (λ), the relative spacing of the trapezoidal piers (Δζ), the length of the trapezoidal piers (ϕ), and the longitudinal section dimensions of the trapezoidal piers (γ). Each factor was set at three levels, and 18 test conditions were arranged using the L₁₈ (3⁷) orthogonal array. [Results] Main effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the most significant factors influencing the energy dissipation rate η were the trapezoidal pier spacing Δζ (P=0.005) and the relative height of the rough strips h₁ (P=0.045), with the degree of influence ranked as: Δζ > h₁> θ > λ > ϕ > b > γ. This was because Δζ directly altered the number and water-facing area of the trapezoidal piers, enhancing counterflow resistance and turbulent dissipation, while variations in h₁ effectively redirected high-kinetic-energy flow from the concave bank toward the convex bank, maximizing the energy dissipation capacity of the latter. For the flow diversion effect C_v, the most influential factors were the relative width of the rough strips b (P=0.005), the length of the trapezoidal piers ϕ (P=0.011), the height ratio of the rough strips λ (P=0.015), and the spacing of the trapezoidal piers Δζ (P=0.023), ranked as: b > ϕ > λ > Δζ > h₁ > γ > θ. Among these, b, h₁, and λ collectively determined the obstructive and frictional effects of the rough strips on concave-bank flow, forcing redirection toward the convex bank and thereby achieving more uniform water depth distribution within the basin. Through post hoc multiple comparisons and comprehensive analysis of factor-level trends, the optimal parameter combination balancing both energy dissipation and flow diversion effects was determined as A2B3C3D3E3F3G1. Validation tests for this optimal configuration demonstrated significant improvements compared to the initial condition without energy dissipators: the energy dissipation rate η increased from 72.47% to 82.22% (a net gain of 9.75%). The coefficient of variation of the transverse water surface gradient C_v decreased from 0.981 9 to 0.161 2 (an 83.58% reduction). The vortex flow within the basin was mitigated, with average flow velocities at the concave and convex banks declining from 7.72 m/s and 12.42 m/s to 3.03 m/s and 3.43 m/s, respectively (reductions of 60.75% and 72.38%), and the inlet velocity of the discharge channel was substantially lowered. To translate the research findings into practical tools, a multi-factor evaluation model incorporating 11 dimensionless parameters was established based on dimensional analysis principles. Through multiple regression analysis, logarithmic function equations (adjusted R²=0.946) for predicting energy dissipation rate η and asymptotic function equations (adjusted R²=0.804) for forecasting the coefficient of variation of the transverse water surface gradient C_v were respectively developed. To ensure model reliability, six independent working conditions (including the optimal combination), which had not been involved in the fitting process, were selected for validation. The results demonstrated that the relative errors between predicted and measured values for both η and C_v remained below 10%, confirming the established semi-theoretical and semi-empirical formulas achieved excellent precision and applicability. [Conclusion] Verifications through anti-sliding and anti-overturning stability calculations confirm that the combined energy dissipator meets safety requirements under design hydraulic loads, ensuring its safety and effectiveness in practical engineering applications.