Methodologies to predict stranding potential during hydropeaking operations

Transcription

1 Methodologies to predict stranding potential during hydropeaking operations Casas-Mulet R (1), Alfredsen K (1), Ruther N (1), Killingtveit Å (1), Bakken TH (2) (1) Institut for vann og-miljøteknikk, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway (2) SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway

2 Outline 1. Background 2. Aims and applicability 3. Methodological approach 4. The Lundesokna river system 5. Data collection 6. Models set-up 7. Summary of status

3 1. Background Stranding studies -Micro-scale studies in River Nidelva -Upscaling studies in Surna by Forseth et al cms before 50 cms 90 cms after Highlights - Remaining questions: Magnitude of the problem - Need: Real estimates of stranded fish

4 2. Aims and Applicability To provide practical tools to assess physical habitat dynamics during hydropeaking operation related to stranding potential for fish - Over several scales : - Macro-scale - Meso-scale - Micro-scale - Link of physical habitat to operational strategies - Application of 3 existing models: - Interlink between the above models. - nmag - HEC-Ras - SSIIM

5 3.The Lundesokna River System Sokna Håen Sama 3 Regulated reservoirs 3 Power Plants 3 Interbasin transfers Håen Samsjøen Holtsjøen Hydropeaking operations Total catchment area: 395 km 2 Average annual runoff: 381 Mm 3 /year Installed capacity: 61 MW Average annual production: 278 GWh

6 3.The Lundesokna River System Water level (m) Hydropeaking operations Watering curve Dewatering curve

7 Micro-scale Meso-scale Catchment scale 4. Methodological approach Hydropower operation simulation nmag Operational strategies 1D hydraulic model 3D hydraulic model HEC-RAS SSIIM Physical habitat analysis

8 Hydraulic Other data type Geometry 5. Data collection Data type X sections River stretch Equipment Differential GPS Laser scan Runoff (m 3 /s) - Reservoir levels (m) Power production (MWh/h) Discharge & Velocities Water surface elevation - - Flow meters ADCP Differential GPS

9 Hydraulic Geometry 5. Data collection Hydraulic Hydraulic Data type X sections River stretch Outputs x,y,z points Other data - Discharge Velocities Water surface elevation 3 different Q Velocity profile at the study reach at each transect at the study reach HIGH MEDIUM LOW 19.78m3/s m3/s 0.43 m3/s HEC-RAS Transect Name Water level elevation (m) HIGH MEDIUM LOW 19.78m3/s m3/s 0.43 m3/s T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

10 Geometry Hydraulic 5. Data collection - Inputs to Hydraulic Hydraulic Data type Outputs Inputs to X sections River stretch Other data Discharge x,y,z points Natural runoff Reservoir levels Power production 3 different Q HEC-RAS nmag SSIIM Water elevation Velocities at each transect Water line at the study reach Velocity profile at the study reach

11 Geometry Hydraulic 5. Data collection - Verification Hydraulic Hydraulic Data type Outputs Verification of X sections River stretch x,y,z points Other data Discharge Natural runoff Reservoir levels Power production 3 different Q nmag Water elevation Velocities at each transect Water line at the study reach Velocity profile at the study reach HEC-RAS SSIIM

12 6. Models set-up - nmag - HEC-Ras - SSIIM

13 Q (m 3 /s) Water level (m) Q (m 3 /s) % difference nmag set-up Input - Power Plants - Reservoirs - Transfers - Control points Verification - Power Production - Daily Reservoir Water level Output - Simulated hydropeaking curves NVE data Simulated nmag data % Difference -10 Unsteady Flow Analysis t (min) Input to HEC-RAS Release Bypass Spill t (min)

14 L_SF_Subcritical_19.78Q Plan: L_SFS_19.78Q_Plan HEC-RAS set-up Elevation (m) L_SF_Subcritical_19.78Q Plan: L_SFS_19.78Q_Plan WS PF 1 36 Ground 35 Bank Sta 34 OWS PF Lundesokna Transect1to43 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 Ground OWS PF Station (m) L_SF_Subcritical_19.78Q Plan: L_SFS_19.78Q_Plan Elevation (m) WS PF 1 Elevation (m) Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta OWS PF Station (m) Main Channel Distance (m) L_SF_Subcritical_15.3Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_15.31Q L_SF_Subcritical_15.3Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_15.31Q Lundesokna Transect1to43 WS PF 1 Elevation (m) WS PF 1 Ground Bank Sta OWS PF 1 32 Crit PF 1 Ground OWS PF 1 32 Steady Flow Analysis Station (m) L_SF_Subcritical_15.3Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_15.31Q Elevation (m) Input - Transects geometry - 3 discharges - Water level downstream Elevation (m) Elevation (m) 28.0 WS PF 1 Crit PF Ground 27.0 Bank Sta 26.5 OWS PF Station (m) L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q WS PF 1 36 Ground 35 Bank Sta 34 OWS PF Main Channel Distance (m) L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q Lundesokna Transect1to43 33 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 32 Ground OWS PF Output / Verification - Observed vs Simulated WL Elevation (m) Station (m) L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q Plan: L_SF_Subcritical_0.43Q WS PF 1 Crit PF Ground 27.0 Bank Sta 26.5 OWS PF 1 Elevation (m) Station (m) Main Channel Distance (m)

15 W.S. Elev (m) HEC-RAS set-up Unsteady Flow Analysis Input - Dewatering curve u/s transect Output - Hydraulic habitat loss vs t for each transect - Dewatering curve at each transect L_UnsteadyFlow_19.78Q_v2 Plan: L_UF_Plan1 20/08/2010 L_UnsteadyFlow_19.78Q_v2 Plan: L_UF_Plan1 20/08/ Q Total (m3/s) W.S. Elev W.S. Elev (m) L_UnsteadyFlow_19.78Q_v2 Plan: L_UF_Plan1 20/08/ W.S. Elev (m) Q (m 3 /s) time steps (s) L_UnsteadyFlow_19.78Q_v2 38 Plan: L_UF_Plan1 20/08/ W.S Elev Input to SSIIM Unsteady Flow Analysis WS Max WS Ground Bank Sta Q Total (m3/s) W.S. Elev Q Total (m3/s) 2 3 5

16 SSIIM set-up Steady Flow Analysis Input - Reach geometry - 1 discharge - Water elevation downstream

17 Northing Depth (m) Velocity (m/s) SSIIM set-up Steady Flow Analysis Output data 2 Simulated Simulated Observed Simulated 1.6 Observed Observed Observed vs Simulated Depths Distance from LB (m) Easting Distance from LB (m) Observed vs Simulated Velocities Observed vs Simulated Water Line

18 7. Summary of status Overall set-up works and links between models are possible: Model Provides To nmag - Hydropeaking curve u/s HEC-RAS HEC-Ras - Dewatering curve at study reach - 1D Hydraulic habitat loss SSIIM SSIIM - 3D Hydraulic habitat loss - Verification of accuracy in stranding prediction by HR HEC-RAS

19 7. Summary of status Further tests to be done: nmag is fully operational but needs refining HEC-RAS needs verification for Unsteady Flow analysis SSIIM needs: Verification for Steady Flow Analysis Run Unsteady Flow Analysis Direct links to ecological parameters are needed

20 THANKS! Especially to: TronderEnergi for the data provided and to Siri, Jahn Peter, Julien, Netra, Christophe, Stefan and Taylor for the help provided in the field!