FIThydro activities related to downstream fish migration · Mortality (Voith Hydro, TUM, SAVASA, TUT, INBO) 11/09/2018 L. David –M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 11 Stressor combined with

FIThydro activities related to downstream

fish migration

Laurent DAVID, Ismail ALBAYRAK & Dominique COURRET

CNRS, VAW - ETH Zurich & AFB

11/09/2018 L. David – M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 1

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 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)


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

Pprime VAW Pprime & VAW

FIThydro activities related to downstream

fish migration for small-to-medium

hydropower plants

Laurent DAVID, Manon DEWITTE, Dominique COURRET

CNRS & AFB



horizontal bars with low bar spacing





Pprime VAW Pprime & VAW

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 attractivities, with field

measurements (ADCP) and 3D modelling

ADCP measurements at Las Rives Intake


(inclined rack)


ADCP measurements at Las Rives Intake

Lemkecher et al. (2018)Riverflow 2018


(inclined rack)


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

silvers eels

• Radiotelemetry with PIT Tagging or radiotracking

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

Rives in 2017 and 2018.

Antennas at Gotein HPP

PIT Tag

Radiotracking material


horizontal bars with low bar spacing





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,

23L. David – M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 11/09/2018


horizontal bars






Angled trashracks with horizontal bars

4 Angles:

90°-60°-45°-30°

2 Profiles:

Rectangular-Hydrodynamic

3 Space bars:

5-10-20 mm

Bar width: 5mm

Fish guidance structures with horizontal bars

+ Study of the shape, bar spacingon head-losses, upstream anddownstream velocity


0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 1 2 3 4 5

ζ

e/b

PH-α= 30°

PH-α =45°

PH-α =60°

PH-α =90°

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 1 2 3 4 5

ζ

e/b

PR-α= 30°

PR-α =45°

PR-α =60°

PR-α =90°

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ζ

α (°)

PR-e=5

PR-e=10

PR-e=20

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ζ

α(°)

PH-e=5

PH-e=10

PH-e=20

e: bar spaceb: bar widthPR: RectangularPH: Hydrodynamic




• Raynal, 2013.a Formula:

𝜁 = 𝐴𝑖𝑂𝑏

1−𝑂𝑏

1,65sin(β)2+C

𝑂𝑠𝑝,𝐻

1−𝑂𝑠𝑝,𝐻

0,77

• Albayrak, 2018 Formula:

𝜁 = 𝐾𝑖𝑃

1 − 𝑃

1,8

𝐶𝑙𝐶𝛼

0

0,5

1

1,5

1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4

∆ζ

e/b

Error Measurements-Raynal 2013b. Formula

Error Measurements- Albayrak 2018 Formula

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).

Raynal S., Courret D., Chatellier L., Larinier M. and David L. (2013). “An experimental study on fish-friendly trashracks- Part 1: Inclined trashracks”, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 51:1, 56-

66. Institut Pprime, Université de Poitiers.

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6

ξ

e/b

PR-30°-mes

PR-30°-Raynal

PR-30°-Albayrak

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4

ξ

e/b

PR-90°-mes

PR-90°-Raynal

PR-90°-Albayrak

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4

ξ

e/b

PR-45°-mes

PR-45°-Raynal

PR-45°-Albayrak

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4

ξ

e/b

PR-60°-mes

PR-60°-Raynal

PR-60°-Albayrak

Differences between measurements and Raynal et al 2013) formulaDifferences between measurements and Albayrack et al (2018) formula



Proprieties Angled Trashrackswith vertical bars

Modified AngledTrashracks withvertical bars

Angled Trashracks withhorizontal bars

Head losses high low low

UpstreamVelocity

VtVn

VtVn

VtVn

DownstreamVelocity

Asymmetric Quasi constant Quasi constant

Overview of downstream fish migration for

small-to-medium hydropower plants


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

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

FIThydro activities related to downstream fish

migration for small-to-medium hydropower

plants:

Fish monitoring for small-to-medium

hydropower

Laurent DAVID, Manon DEWITTE, Dominique COURRET

CNRS & AFB


Presentation of the 2 sites – Saison - France

31

Info Gotein Trois-Villes

Type of HPP Run-of-river

Max turbined flow 6.6 m3/s 4.1 m3/s

Upstream migration device

Yes at the dam and at the HPP

Downstreammigration

Inclined bar rack

ß = 26°

Bar clearance = 20 mm

2 outlets 1 outlet

380 l/s 201 l/s

Intake width (m) 6.4 4.0

Lenght headracechannel (m)

780 550

Courret et Larinier (2008)

L. David – M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 11/09/2018


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

Gotein

1

Tomanova et al. 2018

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%)

Presentation of the 2 sites


1

Tomanova et al.

2018

bypass

rack with bypass

entrancefishpass and

eelpass gate to

evacuation

canal

intake channel

Trois-Villes

Tomanova et al.

2018rack with bypass

entrance

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

Presentation of the 2 sites

Results


Gotein Trois-Villes

Fish group GOT1 GOT2 GOT3 GOT4 GOT5 GOT6 TRV1 TRV2 TRV3 TRV4 TRV5 TRV6

Nb of fish released 50 50 50 50 50 52 50 50 50 50 50 50

Release time (h:min) 19:45 22:40 00:40 18:37 22:38 00:17 18:28 22:20 00:12 18:07 22:07 23:34

% passage in bypass 100 76 78 88 72 71.2 74 48 50 76 66 52

% passage in fishway 0 2 2 2 0 5.8 2 0 2 0 0 0

% passage in discharge channel NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 40 42 20 32 34

% safe (minimum) 100 78 80 90 72 76.9 92 88 94 96 98 86

Mean % safe (weighted) 82.8 92.3

Min passage time (h:min:s) 00:03:25 00:04:25

Med passage time (h:min:s) 00:19:59 01:02:01

3rd quartile 01:08:13 03:15:39

Max passage time (h:mon:s) 187:33:21 40:58:52

A majority of released fishes went successfully downstream (>82%)A majority of released fishes went downstreamn through bypasses

Great individual variability in passage time

Median passage time is low for Gotein : 20 minutes

Median passage time is high for Trois-Villes due to its configuration

Global survival

35

Spillway

HPPDownstream migration deviceEfficiency 82.8% 56 fishes

QTOT QDEV

QTURB

QTOT100 fishes 32 fishes

68 fishes 67 fishes

Mortality in the turbines 11% 1 fishes

99 fishes

Global mortality 1%

Gotein

Proportion of fishes going through the weir calculated according Anonymous, 2002a, 2002b; Voegtlé, 2010

L. David – M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 11/09/2018

Global survival

3611/09/2018

Spillway

HPPDownstream migration deviceEfficiency 92.3% 85 fishes

QTOT QDEV

QTURB

QTOT100 fishes 8 fishes

92 fishes 91 fishes

Mortality in the turbines 11% 1 fishes

99 fishes

Global mortality 1%

Trois-Villes: with the discharge channel

Without the discharge channel, the efficiency of downstream migration device is lower: 88.5 %; but it doesn’t change the global mortality is around 1.16 against 0.77 with the discharge

channel

L. David – M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB

Efficiency of fish-friendly water intake on the

Ariège – HPP of Las Rives - France


Fish tracking telemetry

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

River = cumulative effects

HPPMean flow

Max turbined flow

Width of rack

Water depth

m3/s m3/s m mLas Rives 41.8 45 15 4

Las Mijeannes

44.2 45 21.6 2.6

Guilhot 44.2 32 15 2.7

Pébernat 44.8 50 60 1.8

3 inclined + 1 angled trashracks

Efficiency of fish-friendly water intake on the

Ariège – HPP of Las Rives - France


Fish tracking telemetry

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

River = cumulative effects

– Spring 2017 and 2018: test with salmon smolts preliminary results efficiency over

80%

– Winter 2018 and 2019: test on silver eels in progress

Efficiency of fish-friendly water intake on the Nive

– HPP of Halsou – France2016

• Angled bar rack


Halsou

1

Bypass entrance

spillway

rack

fishpass

spillway canal

intakechannel

tailrace

Bypass entrance

Max turbined flow: 30 m3/sWidth: 20.9 mHeight: 3.6 m

Bar spacing: 20 mm1 outlet, right bank

Efficiency of fish-friendly water intake on the Nive

– HPP of Halsou - France

• Angled bar rack


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

Nb of fish released 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 66 72

Release time (h:min) 18:28 22:20 00:12 18:07 22:07 23:34 21:13 22:47 18:15 21:42 23:05

% 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

Mean % safe (weighted)

Min passage time (h:min:s)

Med passage time (h:min:s)

3rd quartile

Max passage time (h:min:s)

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

Conclusion/Discussion


• Efficiencies of tested « fish-friendly » intakes are satisfactory

(>80%)

• Our results can reasonably be applied to wild populations and

confirm the efficiency of « fish-friendly » intakes for small and

medium HPPs

• Waiting for results on the Ariège bigger HPP and impact of

several HPPs

Thank you for your attention


Funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

Documents

FIThydro activities related to downstream fish migration · Mortality (Voith Hydro, TUM, SAVASA, TUT, INBO) 11/09/2018 L. David –M. Dewitte / CNRS & AFB 11 Stressor combined with