solutions for downstream migration - syncandshare.lrz.de€¦ · solutions for downstream migration...

Solutions for downstream migration

Laurent DAVID, Ismail ALBAYRAK & Dominique COURRET

CNRS, VAW - ETH Zurich & AFB

5/06/2018Laurent David / CNRS ; Ismail Albayrak

/ VAW ; Dominique Courret / AFB1

Downstream fish migration issue



Photo: VAW

• Direct mortalities due to the passage through turbines (strike, gridding,

pressure change, turbulence and shear)

• Indirect mortalities due to delay and disorientation of fish in the

impoundment and following the passage through turbines

Overview of solutions acceptance - Context



• Downstream migration is taking into account for :

– Salmon : smolts (+ adults)

– Sea trout : smolts + adults

Can have a lot of hydropower plants on their migration route

– Eels : silver eels

Suffered high mortality

– Brown trout at medium or high head hydropower plant

– Other species

• A lot of small hydropower plants on migration route (old mills)

– Run-of-river operation

– Turbine discharge mostly < 50 m3/s, some between 50 - 100 m3/s

– A few big plants :

• Dordogne and Garonne river : 300-500 m3/s

• Rhine and Rhone river : 1000 – 1500 m3/s

Silver eels :

- Male 30-45 cm

- Female 50-90 (110) cm

Smolts : (12) 15 - 20 (22) cm

Overview of solutions acceptance - 4 families of solutions :



1) Targeted shutdown of turbines

• Foreseen for eels notably ; can be efficient, but can also generate high loss of

production

• Main difficulty is to target and anticipate the events of downstream migration:

– Using Biomonitor, such as Migromat® limited efficiency (≈ 30% at Killaloe) due to

delayed detection

– Using models with environmental parameters (flow, t°, …) development of model is long

and expensive (radiotracking + fisheries)

– Downstream migration period of eels seems longer than expected initially ?

• Only accepted at biggest dams, where other solutions are not feasible (Tuilières

dam on Dordogne River ; shutdown during 54-77 nights each winter)

Migromat at Killaloe




2) Fish-friendly turbine :

• Different types of turbines considered fish-friendly

nowadays:

– VLH : ΔH between 1,4 - 3.5 m and Q between 10 - 30 m3/s

(except for kelts)

– Screw : ΔH between 1 - 10 m and Q between 0.1 - 5-7 m3/s

(with some conditions)

– Minimum Gap Runner Voith

– Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis/FishFlow

– Alden Turbine

– ….

• Could be an interesting solutions for the replacements of

big Kaplan turbines (Q 50 - 350 m3/s – ΔH 3-15 m) where

other solutions are not feasible

Needs of validation and new developments

VLH

Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis

Alden Turbine




3) Behavioural barriers associated with bypasses

• Devices using stimuli (sound, light, electricity, …) to divert fish from the intake,

towards a bypass

Guiding most fish into a small part of the flow (few %) is a challenge

• Some test in laboratory seems promising, but tests in situ show low efficiencies

– Stimuli effect is often sensible to environmental conditions (turbidity, hydraulic conditions)

– Difficulties to guide fish, because their movements in response to stimuli are not a specific

direction

No system approved until now (in France),

Electric screen, Halsou

Infrasound, Baigts and Biron




4) Materials barriers associated with bypasses

• Louver :

– Can be efficient for several species, including smolts,

under the condition of a low angulation (θ = 10-30°)

– Not considered efficient for eels

• Surface guiding wall :

– Can be efficient for surface oriented fish, including

smolts, under the condition of a really deep wall

– Not efficient for eels

• Bypass in association with low bar spacing

trashracks (fish-friendly intake)

Guiding wall at Tuilières

4.0-5.4 m deep

• Can generate high head-losses due to low bar-spacing

and trash clogging

Needs of tools to assess head-losses, and for solutions

to reduce them (bar profile, horizontal bars , streamwise

bars …)

Needs of trashrake development (faster, longer for

inclined rack, …)

• Guiding most fish into a small part of the flow (few %)

is a challenge

Needs of criteria development, notably for eels at

angled rack and deep intake (deep surface or bottom

bypass ?)

Feed back to acquire on operation

Needs of assessment of biological efficiency, to verify

if high values (>80-90%) are well obtained

Large HPPs ?

Overview of solutions acceptance


/ VAW ; Dominique Courret / AFB 8

Hydrodynamic bars

Headloss at angled trashrack

Inclined rack and bypasses

Overview of downstream fish passage solutions



Concept Type

Fine Screens

Submerged Bar Screens

Rotary Screens

Eicher-Screen

Wedge-Wire-Screen

Barrier Nets

Skimming Walls

Louvers

Bar-Racks

Plate Screens

Trash Racks

Light (Strobe or Mercury)

Low Frequency Sound

Popper

Electricity

Air- / Water Curtains

Surface Collection Pipes

Traveling Screens

Fish Pumps

Trap and Truck

Alden Turbine

Voith - Minimum Gap Runner

Alstom - Fish Friendly Kaplan-Turbine

Early Warning Systems

Weir Overflow

No Partial Load Operation

Fish Friendly

Operation

Fis

h P

rote

cti

on

Tech

no

log

ies a

t H

PP

Measure

Scre

en

ing

/ S

hie

ldin

g a

nd

Gu

idan

ce

Physical Barriers

By

pa

ss

Mechanical,

Behavioural

Barriers

Sensory,

Behavioural

Barriers

Collection Systems

Co

nveyan

ce Fish Friendly

Turbines

Activities in FIThydro

U. Stoltz (Voith Hydro)

Biological Performance Assessment (BioPA)

5/06/2018Laurent David / CNRS ; Ismail Albayrak / VAW ;

Dominique Courret / AFB 10

Definition of seed points Evaluation of streamline

graphic generated with BioPA by PNNL

Main parameters:Strike, Gap flows, ShearPressure variation

Mortality (Voith Hydro, TUM, SAVASA, TUT, INBO)



Stressor combined with dose response (biological data) to give mortality.

𝑃𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = න 𝑃𝑒 ∙ 𝑃𝑚 ∙ 𝑑𝑥• Exposure mortality (Pm), f(fish species, acclimation depth)

• Exposure probability(Pe), f(water passage geometry,

turbine design, operating condition)

graphic generated with BioPA by PNNL

Fish guidance structures with vertical or

horizontal bars



Illustration: Albayrak et al. (2017)


horizontal bars



Laboratory studies with physical models Field studies at Hydropower Plants (HPP)

Hydraulic Fish Behavior Hydraulic Fish monitoring

ADV Water depth PIV Video Tracking ADCP Flow modeling Telemetry Sonar


horizontal bars






Fish guidance structures with vertical bars

(inclined rack)



1) Study on physical model of several rack configurations with measurement of

head-losses and flow velocities (ADV, PIV)

• Inclined rack : study of the influence of transverse elements (spacer, support)

and clogging on head-losses to complement the formula proposed by Raynal et

al. 2013


(inclined rack)





• Inclined rack : study of head-losses for several industrial bar profiles for low bar

spacing

– Inclination : β = 90, 60, 45, 30°,15°

– Bar spacing : e = 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm

– Bar width b varying between 8 and 12 mm


(inclined rack)





• Inclined rack : study of head-losses and flow velocities for perforated screens

– Inclination : β = 90, 60, 45, 30°,15°

– Several shapes of perforations (circular, oblong)

– Several screen porosities


(inclined rack)



2) Assessment of the efficiency of fish-friendly intakes for salmon smolts and

silvers eels

• Characterization of hydrodynamic, bypass attractivity, with field measurements

(ADCP) and 3D modelling

ADCP measurements at Las Rives Intake


(inclined rack)




silvers eels

• Radiotelemetry with PIT Tagging or radiotracking

Antennas at Gotein HPP

PIT TagRadiotracking material


(inclined rack)




silvers eels

• Efficiency assessed for smolts at Gotein and Trois-Villes in 2016

Gotein

1

Tomanova et al. 2017 (in prep)

rack

rack with

bypass

entrances

spillwayfishpasses

(pools and

eel pass)

bypass

intake channel

rack with

bypass

entrances

QTURB = 6.7 m3/s and QBYPASS = 0.38 m3/s (5.7%)


(inclined rack)




silvers eels


Trois-Villes

1

Tomanova et al.

2017 (in prep)

Tomanova et al.

2017 (in prep)

bypass

rack with bypass

entrancefishpass and

eelpass gate to

evacuation

canalintake channel

rack with bypass

entranceQTURB = 3.9 m3/s and QBYPASS = 0.2 m3/s (5.1%)


(inclined rack)




silvers eels


HEP

Fish group AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4 AUT5 GOT1 GOT2 GOT3 GOT4 GOT5 GOT6

Nb of fish released 37 59 47 49 47 50 50 50 50 50 52

Release time (h:min) 20:20 14:48 21:21 23:28 10:25 19:45 22:40 00:40 18:37 22:38 00:17

% passage in bypass 89.2 84.7 76.6 75.5 78.7 100 76 78 88 72 71.2

% passage in fishpass 2.7 3.4 6.4 0 6.4 0 2 2 2 0 5.8

% pass. in discharge channel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% safe (minimum) 91.9 88.1 83 75.5 85.1 100 78 80 90 72 76.9

Mean % safe (weighted)

Min passage time (h:min:s)

Med passage time (h:min:s)

3rd quartile

Max passage time (h:min:s)

HEP

Fish group TRV1 TRV2 TRV3 TRV4 TRV5 TRV6 HAL1 HAL2 HAL3 HAL4 HAL5



% passage in bypass 74 48 50 76 66 52 86 86 90 78.8 94.4

% passage in fishpass 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% pass. in discharge channel 16 40 42 20 32 34 NA NA NA 7.6* NA

% safe (minimum) 92 88 94 96 98 86 86 86 90 78.8 94.4




3rd quartile


02:14:37

40:58:52

87

00:00:09

00:17:35

82.5 days

03:15:39

00:03:25

00:19:59

187:33:21

92.3

00:04:25

01:02:01

01:08:13

Auterrive Gotein

Trois-Ville Halsou

84.7

00:07:47

00:22:24

01:51:50

54:18:34

82.8

HEP

Fish group AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4 AUT5 GOT1 GOT2 GOT3 GOT4 GOT5 GOT6



% passage in bypass 89.2 84.7 76.6 75.5 78.7 100 76 78 88 72 71.2

% passage in fishpass 2.7 3.4 6.4 0 6.4 0 2 2 2 0 5.8

% pass. in discharge channel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

% safe (minimum) 91.9 88.1 83 75.5 85.1 100 78 80 90 72 76.9




3rd quartile


HEP

Fish group TRV1 TRV2 TRV3 TRV4 TRV5 TRV6 HAL1 HAL2 HAL3 HAL4 HAL5



% passage in bypass 74 48 50 76 66 52 86 86 90 78.8 94.4

% passage in fishpass 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% pass. in discharge channel 16 40 42 20 32 34 NA NA NA 7.6* NA

% safe (minimum) 92 88 94 96 98 86 86 86 90 78.8 94.4




3rd quartile


02:14:37

40:58:52

87

00:00:09

00:17:35

82.5 days

03:15:39

00:03:25

00:19:59

187:33:21

92.3

00:04:25

01:02:01

01:08:13

Auterrive Gotein

Trois-Ville Halsou

84.7

00:07:47

00:22:24

01:51:50

54:18:34

82.8


(inclined rack)




silvers eels

• Study ongoing for smolts and eels at Las Rives and 3 other HPPs on the Ariège

River = cumulative effects

Module de

l'Ariège

Débit

d'équipement

Largeur au niveau

de la grille

Hauteur

d'eau

m 3 /s m 3 /s m m

Las Rives 41,8 45 15,0 4,0

Las Mijeannes 44,2 45 21,6 2,6

Guilhot 44,2 32 15,0 2,7

Pébernat 44,8 50 60,0 1,8

Centrale

hydroélectrique

3 inclined + 1 angled trashracks


horizontal bars









Holyoke Canal – Downstream migration

Louver- and Bar Rack-Systems

Management of a variety of target

species

Wide range of hydraulic conditions

Robust and less vulnerable in

terms of sediment and driftwood

Considerable size of the system

Applicability at variety of local

species unknown (Barbel, Grayling,

Spirlin, Trout, Eel)

Hydraulic losses and flow field

influence largely unexplored

Kriewitz-Byun, C.R. (2015). Guidance screens at fish protection facilities - Hydraulics and fish-biological efficiency. VAW-Mitteilung Nr. 230, R. M. Boes (Ed.),

Zurich: Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW), ETH Zurich, Switzerland (in German).




Main angle

Bar angle

Bar distance

Bar length

Bar shape

Submergence depth

Albayrak, I., Kriewitz, C.R., Hager, W.H., & Boes, R.M. (2017). An experimental investigation on louvers and angled bar racks. Journal of Hydraulic

Research, DOI:10.1080/00221686.2017.1289265.

Large bar spacing: Bar distance/Bar width ≥ 5


(angled rack)



VAW

b)a)

Barbel (Barbus barbus) Spirlin (Alburnoides bipunctatus)Trout (Salmo trutta fario) Grayling (Thymallus thymallus) Eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Photos: D. Flügel, Eawag, A. Hartl and A. Peter

Large bar spacing: Bar distance/Bar width > 5

Barbel, Grayling, Spirlin, Trout, Eel)


(angled rack)



α = 15°

α = 30°

b = 30/45°

b = 30/45°

L3 & L4

L5 & L6



Methodology

Small scale & Etho-hydraulic experiments

Novelty compared to Kriewitz (2015)

New MBR design with curved bars

Various Bypass designs

Expected values for practical use

Less head loss

Improved turbine flow

Better bypass flow

Better fish guidance efficiency

Solutions for driftwood and sediment problems

Qd > 100 m3/s


(angled rack)

𝝃 = 𝑲𝒊

𝑶𝒈

𝟏 − 𝑶𝒈

𝟏.𝟔

𝑲𝜶

𝑲𝜶 = 𝟏 + 𝒌𝒊𝟗𝟎 − 𝛂

𝟗𝟎

𝟐.𝟑𝟓𝟏 − 𝑶𝒈

𝑶𝒈

𝟑

𝑲𝜶 = 𝟏


(angled rack) Low bar spacing:Bar distance/Bar width ≤ 5

Raynal et al (2013, 2014), Journal of Hydraulic Research,

3020/03/2018 Laurent David / CNRS ; Ismail Albayrak

/ VAW ; Dominique Courret / AFB


horizontal bars






Fish guidance structures with horizontal bars



Maager, F. (2016). Fish guidance structures with horizontal bar elements. Master thesis, Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology

and Glaciology (VAW), ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland (in German).

Photo: Albayrak

1.8

1B i l α

Pξ K C C

P

A head formula developed**published soon


Parameters

• Approach flow angle

• Bar shape

• Clear spacing

• Top / Bottom overlay

Goals

• Hydraulic losses

• Approach flow field to turbines

• Operational aspects

(bed load, driftwood, leaves)

• Biological fish guiding efficiency






Photo: Albayrak

Schiffmühle (Dotierkraftwerk)

Hydraulic investigation

Fish Monitoring

Numerical modelling

www.pobonline.com

Overview of downstream fish passage

technologies



Concept Type

Fine Screens


Rotary Screens

Eicher-Screen

Wedge-Wire-Screen

Barrier Nets

Skimming Walls

Louvers

Bar-Racks

Plate Screens

Trash Racks


Low Frequency Sound

Popper

Electricity



Traveling Screens

Fish Pumps

Trap and Truck

Alden Turbine




Weir Overflow


Fish Friendly

Operation

Fis

h P

rote

cti

on

Tech

no

log

ies a

t H

PP

Measure

Scre

en

ing

/ S

hie

ldin

g a

nd

Gu

idan

ce

Physical Barriers

By

pa

ss

Mechanical,

Behavioural

Barriers

Sensory,

Behavioural

Barriers

Collection Systems

Co

nveyan

ce Fish Friendly

Turbines

Influence of 10 different bar

(aspect ratio, shapes, sizes)

Generalization of head loss

laws for inclined and angled

trashracks with horizontal

and vertical bars

Influence of structures to

maintain the barriers and of

clogging effects

Overview of downstream fish passage

technologies



Concept Type

Fine Screens


Rotary Screens

Eicher-Screen

Wedge-Wire-Screen

Barrier Nets

Skimming Walls

Louvers

Bar-Racks

Plate Screens

Trash Racks


Low Frequency Sound

Popper

Electricity



Traveling Screens

Fish Pumps

Trap and Truck

Alden Turbine




Weir Overflow


Fish Friendly

Operation

Fis

h P

rote

cti

on

Tech

no

log

ies a

t H

PP

Measure

Scre

en

ing

/ S

hie

ldin

g a

nd

Gu

idan

ce

Physical Barriers

By

pa

ss

Mechanical,

Behavioural

Barriers

Sensory,

Behavioural

Barriers

Collection Systems

Co

nveyan

ce Fish Friendly

Turbines

Biological validation

Operational aspects and

operator feed back

Numerical modeling for

design improvement

Cleaning efficiency

Other aspects like the outlet

of the downstream migration

channel

Cost evaluation

Thank you for your attention



Funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

solutions for downstream migration - syncandshare.lrz.de€¦ · solutions for downstream migration...

Documents