DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Ladders for Lower Monumental Dam Snake River, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Ladders for Lower Monumental Dam Snake River, Washington c TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 109-1 FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM SNAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON HYDRAULIC MODEL INVESTIGATIONS BY L.Z. PERKINS DECEMBER 1973 SPONSORED BY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT WALLA WALLA CONDUCTED BY DIVISION HYDRAULIC LABORATORY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NORTH PACIFIC CORPS OF ENGINEERS BONNEVILLE, OREGON THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an offic Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. 92063535 C\ TECHNICAL REPORT N®. 109-1 7 FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM SNAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON ' ^ HYDRAULIC MODEL INVESTIGATIONS ^ BY 7 L.Z. PERKINS !? DECEMBER 1973 SPONSORED BY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT WALLA WALLA CONDUCTED BY ^piVISION HYDRAULIC LABORATORY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NORTH PACIFIC ^ CORPS OF ENGINEERS BONNEVILLE, OREGON THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE PREFACE The hydraulic model studies that are described in this report were requested by the U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, in a letter dated 28 December 1962 to the Chief, Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer District, Portland. The model tests were made from April to November 1962 at Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory, Bonneville, Oregon, under the general direction of the Portland District Engineer and Mr. L. R. Metcalf, who was in charge of the Hydraulic Section of the Portland District. The Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory was renamed the North Pacific Division Hydraulic Laboratory when it was transferred to the U. S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific, 1 July 1963. Personnel of the Portland and Walla Walla Districts visited the Laboratory to observe flow conditions in the fishway models, to discuss test results, and to correlate the test results with design work for the Lower Monumental Project. A progress report was forwarded to the Walla Walla District as each test was completed. Separate phases of the fishway studies were described in 13 memorandum reports. Mr. R. L. Johnson, engineer in charge of the fishway model studies, was assisted by Messrs. A. G. Nissila and D. E. Fox, under the direction of Messrs. A. J. Chanda, Chief, Hydraulics Branch, and H. P. Theus, Director of the Laboratory. This report was prepared by Mr. L. Z. Perkins under the supervision of Messrs. Chanda and Theus. iii CONVERSION FACTORS, BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT British units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric units as follows: ______ Multiply_______ __ lz___ _____ To Obtain_______ feet 0.3048 meters miles (U.S .statute) 1.609344 kilometers feet per second 0.3048 meters per second cubic feet per second 0.0283168 cubic meters per second v Contents Page PREFACE......................................................... iii COWERS I ON FACTORS, BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT . v SUMMARY.......................................................... ix PART I: INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1 The Prototype.............................................. 1 Fishway Design Criteria ................................... k Need For Model S t u d i e s ................................... k PART II: THE M O D E L S .......................................... 6 Description................................................ 6 Appurtenances and Scale Relationships ...................... 7 PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS . ............................. 9 Overflow Weirs ............................................. 9 Entrance Weirs ............................................. 10 Diffusion Chambers 2 to 6 . ............................... 11 FIGURE 1 TABLES A TO I PHOTOGRAPHS 1 TO 9 PLATES 1 TO 17 vii SUMMARY Facilites for passing fish upstream over Lower Monumental Dam include a powerhouse fish collection system, auxiliary water-supply systems, and a fish ladder on each side of the river. The main portions of the l6-ft- wide fish ladders are constructed with a floor slope of 1 on 10. The 6-ft- high weirs have two l8- by l8-in. orifices on the floor 3 ft from the fish ladder walls, a 6-ft-long nonoverflow section centered in the ladders, and fins that extend 18 in. upstream from the ends of the nonoverflow sections. The weir crests are like those in the north fish ladder at John Day Dam. Auxiliary water for transportation flow in the ladders and attraction flows at the fishway entrances is pumped through supply conduits and dis­ tributed through six diffusion chambers in the floor of each ladder. Flow control for the downstream diffuser is provided by sluice gates from the supply conduit; flow in the other five diffusers is automatically controll­ ed by a weir-and-orifice arrangement in the diffuser wells. A straight, 35-pool section of the south fish ladder was reproduced in a 1:10-scale model. Tests in the model indicated that flow conditions in the typical pools would be satisfactory. Discharges of 66.0 and 69*7 cfs produced heads of 10.0 and 12.0 in., respectively, on the weirs. With l8- by l8-in. orifices in all weirs, heads of 12.2 and 13*4 in. were required to provide the above discharges at the first weir below the fish counting station. Discharge rating data for a typical fishway entrance weir were measured in a 1:10-scale model. The quantity of flow increased with submergence and decreased with weir height. A maximum discharge of 227*5 cfs per ft of channel width was obtained with no weir and 14 ft of submergence. Discharge over a 15-ft-high weir submerged 5 ft was 28.1 cfs per ft of crest length. Portions of the supply conduit and fish ladder at two adjacent diffu­ sion chambers were reproduced in a l:8-scale model. Discharges, pressures, and flow conditions were observed with both diffusers in operation and with the upstream diffuser closed. Total discharge from both diffusers was 82.5 cfs for design conditions of 2 ft of head in the conduit and with the con­ duit pressure grade line 4 ft above the downstream distribution weir. The downstream diffuser produced 48.9 cfs -under the design conditions. There was no significant relationship between pressures in the diffuser wells and discharges through the metering orifices. The distribution of flow thiough diffusion chambers of original design was not satisfactory. Maximum velo­ cities of 1.7 to 1.9 fps were directed upward along the downstream and right sides of the diffuser. Lower velocities, generally downward, existed along the left side of the diffuser. Three diffuser well plans, l4 orifice plans, and five floor plans were tested in attempts to obtain uniform dis­ tribution of flow into the fish ladder. Flow over distribution weirs that were normal to the orifices caused rotating flow in the diffuser wells and unequal distribution of flow through the orifices. Revisions of the well, floor, or bubbler beams had little effect. The original design, modified by placing the orifices on the side of the diffuser wells away from the fish ladder and 2.64 instead of 2.0 ft above the bottoms of the baffle beams (plan 4 orifices), was adopted for construction in the prototype. ix FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM SHAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON Hydraulic Model Investigations PART I : INTRODUCTION The Prototype 1. Lower Monumental Dam is the second of four multiple-purpose dams that are being constructed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Snake River below Lewiston, Idaho. Fig. 1 is a vicinity map of the area in which the projects are located. Ice Harbor Dam, at the head of Lake Wallula, the reservoir formed by McNary Dam on the Columbia River, creates a 31*9-mile-Iong pool that reaches upstream to Lower Monumental Dam at river mile 4l.6*. At normal pool elevation 5^0**, Lower Monumen­ tal Dam will form a reservoir 28.7 miles long with headwaters at the toe of Little Goose Dam at river mile 70*3* Lower Granite Dam, at river mile 107.5.? will complete the slack-water pathway to Lewiston, Idaho and Clarkston, Washington. 2. Principal features of the Lower Monumental Project (shown on plate l) include a powerhouse for six generating units (ultimate installation), a single­ lift navigation lock having net clear dimensions of 86 by 675 ft and a maxi­ mum lift of 103 ft, a gravity-type spillway with eight 50-ft-wide bays, a fish collection system along the downstream side of the powerhouse and a l6-ft-wide fish ladder on each side Fig. 1. Vicinity map of the river, concrete nonoverflow sections, and rockfill abutments. * A table of factors for converting British units of measurment to metric units is presented on page v. ** Elevations are in feet above mean sea level. 1 3. Fish attracted by flow from the powerhouse enter the power­ house fish collection system and the north fishway entrance and proceed upstream via the north fish ladder. With the spillway closed, fish may also enter the powerhouse collection channel through a 6-ft-wide opening in the right training wall of the spillway. The powerhouse collection system consists of two overflow weirs at unit 6, two submerged-orifice entrances at units 1 through 5> and a 17 .5-ft- wide collection channel (invert elevation 432) over the draft tubes from unit 6 to -unit 2 Maximum attraction flow from the powerhouse collection system is about 1,780 cfs. 4. A 6-ft-wide opening through the left training wall of the spillway and two main entrances at the downstream end of the training wall provide access to the south fish ladder. Maximum attraction flow at the south fishway entrances is approximately 840 cfs. The fishway entrances were designed to provide good conditions for fish passage from minimum river discharges at tailwater elevation 437 to a river discharge of 2 25 ,00 0 cfs (approximate tailwater elevation M i-8). The fishway entrances are capable of use above 2 2 5 ,00 0 cfs, but optimum conditions for fish passage are not required at such high flows.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fishway Ladder
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Glen Canyon Dam Spiliway: Summer 1983
    7jq Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Conference Water for Resource Development, HY Di v. /ASCE Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, August 14-17, 1984 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Spiliways - Summer 1983 Philip H. Burgi 1/, M., ASCE, Bruce M. Moyes 2/, Thomas W. Gamble 3/ Abstract. - Flood control at Glen Canyon Do, is provided by a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter tunnel spillway in each abutment. Each spillway is designed to pass 138 000 ft3/s (3907.7 m3/s). The spillways first operated in 1980 and had seen very little use until June 1983. In early June the left spiliway was operated for 72 hours at 20 000 ft3/s (566.3 m3/s). After hearing a rumbling aoise in the left spillway, the radial gates were closed and the tunnel was quickly inspected. Cavitation damage had occurred low in the vertical bend, resulting in removal of approximately 50 yd3 (38.2 rn3) of concrete. Flood flows continued to fill the reservoir. Both spillways were operated releasing a total of 1 626 000 acre-ft (2.0 x m3) over a period of 2 months. Exteri- sive cavitation damage occurred in both spiliways in the vicinity of the vertical bend. Introduction. - The tunnel spiliways are open channel flow type with two 40- by 52.5-ft (12.2- by 16.0-rn) radial gates to control releases to each tunnel. Each spillway consists of a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter inclined section, a vertical bend, and 1000 ft (304.8 m) of horizontal tunnel followed by a flip bucket.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashley National Forest Visitor's Guide
    shley National Forest VISITOR GUIDE A Includes the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Big Fish, Ancient Rocks Sheep Creek Overlook, Flaming Gorge Painter Basin, High Uinta Wilderness he natural forces that formed the Uinta Mountains are evident in the panorama of geologic history found along waterways, roads, and trails of T the Ashley National Forest. The Uinta Mountains, punctuated by the red rocks of Flaming Gorge on the east, offer access to waterways, vast tracts of backcountry, and rugged wilderness. The forest provides healthy habitat for deer, elk, What’s Inside mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and trophy-sized History .......................................... 2 trout. Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, the High Uintas Wilderness........ 3 Scenic Byways & Backways.. 4 Green River, High Uintas Wilderness, and Sheep Creek Winter Recreation.................... 5 National Geological Area are just some of the popular Flaming Gorge NRA................ 6 Forest Map .................................. 8 attractions. Campgrounds ........................ 10 Cabin/Yurt Rental ............... 11 Activities..................................... 12 Fast Forest Facts Know Before You Go .......... 15 Contact Information ............ 16 Elevation Range: 6,000’-13,528’ Unique Feature: The Uinta Mountains are one of the few major ranges in the contiguous United States with an east-west orientation Fish the lakes and rivers; explore the deep canyons, Annual Precipitation: 15-60” in the mountains; 3-8” in the Uinta Basin high peaks; and marvel at the ancient geology of the Lakes in the Uinta Mountains: Over 800 Ashley National Forest! Acres: 1,382,347 Get to Know Us History The Uinta Mountains were named for early relatives of the Ute Indians. or at least 8,000 years, native peoples have Sapphix and son, Ute, 1869 huntedF animals, gathered plants for food and fiber, photo courtesy of First People and used stone tools, and other resources to make a living.
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Awareness May 2018
    Dam Awareness May 2018 Introduction There is a general lack of knowledge, understanding, and awareness of dams and their risks, leaving those most affected by dams unprepared to deal with the impacts of their failures. This fact sheet provides a general overview of dams for consideration and use by the intended audience, based on their situation. Responsibility and Liability for Dam Safety Dams are owned and operated by individuals, private and public organizations, and various levels of government (federal, state, local, tribal). The responsibility for operating and maintaining a safe dam rests with the owner. Common law holds that the storage of water is a hazardous activity. Maintaining a safe dam is a key element in preventing failure and limiting the liability that an owner could face. The extent of an owner’s liability varies from state to state and depends on statutes and case law precedents. Federally owned and regulated dams are subject to federal regulations and guidelines and applicable federal and state laws. Owners can be fiscally and criminally liable for any failure of a dam and all damages resulting from its failure. Any uncontrolled release of the reservoir, whether the result of an intentional release or dam failure, can have devastating effects on persons, property, and the environment (FEMA, 2016a). Any malfunction or abnormality outside the design assumptions and parameters that adversely affect a dam’s primary function of impounding water is considered a dam failure. Lesser degrees of failure can progressively lead to or heighten the risk of a catastrophic failure, which may result in an uncontrolled release of the reservoir and can have a severe effect on persons and properties downstream (FEMA, 2016b).
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Alternatives for Tdg Abatement at Grand Coulee Dam
    STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 2000 STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR TDG ABATEMENT AT GRAND COULEE DAM FEASIBILITY DESIGN REPORT October, 2000 Prepared for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region by Kathleen H. Frizell and Elisabeth Cohen Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................. ix Acknowledgments ..................................................xiii Background .......................................................1 Introduction .......................................................2 Grand Coulee Dam ..................................................2 TDG Evaluation for Existing Conditions ...................................3 Flow Mixing .................................................4 Existing Outlet Works TDG Generation .............................5 Feasibility Design Discharge and Tailwater ...........................7 Feasibility Designs for Structural Alternatives ................................8 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................9 Outlet Works Model .....................................9 Forebay Pipe with Cascade Model ..........................10 Cover and Extend Mid-level Outlet Works (Alternative 1) ................11 Description ...........................................11 Maintenance Issues ...............................12 Hydraulic and Total
    [Show full text]
  • Cavitation Damage
    Cavitation Damage Best Practices in Dam and Levee Safety Risk Analysis Part F – Hydraulic Structures Chapter F-3 Last modified June 2017, presented July 2019 Outline • Cavitation Basics • Case Histories • Typical Event Trees • Key Considerations • Analytical Methods • Defensive Measures F-3 2 Objectives • Understand the mechanisms that cause Cavitation Damage • Understand how to construct an event tree to evaluate the potential for major cavitation damage related failure • Understand how to estimate potential for major cavitation damage and understand the progression mechanism to failure F-3 3 Key Concepts • Cavitation damage is a time dependent process • Cavitation potential can be estimated by computing a cavitation index • Cavitation damage potential is dependent on other factors including the air concentration in flow, the durability of materials, irregularities along the flow surface, and flow durations • Cavitation damage has resulted in significant damage at several large federal dams F-3 4 Cavitation Basics F-3 5 Cavitation Basics 6 Cavitation Basics • Cavitation occurs in high velocity flow, where water pressure is reduced locally because of an irregularity in the flow surface • As vapor cavities move into a zone of higher pressure, they collapse, sending out high pressure shock waves • If the cavities collapse near a flow boundary, there will be damage to the material at the boundary (cyclical loading induced fatigue failure - - - Long duration) 7 Cavitation Basics Phases of Cavitation • Incipient Cavitation – occasional cavitation
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of TERMS for DAMS Abutment
    GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR DAMS Abutment – That part of the valley side or concrete walls against which the dam is constructed. An artificial abutment is sometimes constructed where there is no suitable natural abutment. The wall between a spillway or gate structure and the embankment can also be referred to as an abutment. (Also see Spillway Abutment) Alterations – Changes in the design or configuration of the dam that may affect the integrity or operation of the dam and thereby have a potential to affect the safety of persons, property, or natural resources. (Also see Reconstruction) Appurtenant Works – Structures or machinery auxiliary to dams which are built for operation and maintenance purposes (e.g., outlet works, spillway, powerhouse, tunnels, etc.). Auxiliary Spillway (Emergency Spillway) – A secondary spillway designed to operate only during large flood events; an auxiliary gate is a standby or reserve gate only used when the normal means to control water are not available or at capacity. Boil – An upward disturbance in the surface layer of soil caused by water escaping under pressure from behind or under a dam or a levee. The boil may be accompanied by deposition of soil particles (usually silt) in the form of a ring around the area where the water escapes. Breach – An opening or a breakthrough of a dam sometimes caused by rapid erosion of a section of earth embankment by water; dams can be breached intentionally to render them incapable of impounding water. Capacity (Hydraulic Capacity) – Amount of water a dam can convey through designed spillway structures, typically expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs).
    [Show full text]
  • Flaming Gorge Dam
    Memorandum To: Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office, Provo, Utah Area Manager, Western Area Power Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah From: Field Supervisor, Utah Field Office Fish and Wildlife Service Salt Lake City, Utah Subject: Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) final biological opinion for impacts to federally listed endangered species for Reclamation’s proposed action to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes found in the Green and Colorado River Basins. Reference is made to your February 1, 2005, correspondence (received in our Utah Field office on February 1, 2005) requesting initiation of formal consultation for the subject project. Based on the information presented in the biological assessment and the Operation of Flaming Gorge Environmental Impact Statement that you provided, I concur that the proposed action may adversely effect the threatened Ute ladies’- tresses ( Spiranthes diluvialis) and the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius ), humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), bonytail ( Gila elegans ), and razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ) and critical habitat. Based on the information provided in the biological assessment, I also concur that the proposed operation of Flaming Gorge Dam may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) and southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ).
    [Show full text]
  • Spillway Erosion
    Spillway Erosion Best Practices in Dam and Levee Safety Risk Analysis Part D – Embankments and Foundations Chapter D-2 Last modified June 2017, presented July 2019 Objectives • Understand the mechanisms that affect spillway erosion • Understand how to construct an event tree to represent spillway erosion • Understand the considerations that make this potential failure mode more/less likely • Understand the differences and limitations of the models used to quantify erosion of rock and soil D-2 2 Key Concepts – Spillway Erosion • Recognize that the failure progression is duration dependent (judgement required in evaluating rate of erosion, duration of loading, etc.) • Understand the difference between erosion of a uniform material and that of a varied geology • There are multiple methods available for estimating erosion/scour potential • Scour is complicated and cross-disciplinary • This failure mechanism can be linked to the likelihood of other failure modes (e.g. control section stability, spillway chutes, tunnels and stilling basins) D-2 3 Outline • Overview of the Process • Case Histories • Typical Event Tree • Key Factors Affecting Vulnerability • Analytical Methods • Crosswalk to Other Potential Failure Modes D-2 4 Overview of the Process D-2 5 Spillway Erosion/Scour Process • Turbulence Production • Impinging Jet • Submerged Jet • Back Roller • Hydraulic Jump • Boundary Eddy Formation • Particle Detachment • Brittle Failure • Fatigue Failure • Block Removal (Ejection or Peeling) Bollaert (2010) • Abrasion • Tensile Block Failure Annandale
    [Show full text]
  • Design Optimization of Spillways at Baihetan Hydroelectric Dam
    Design Optimization of Spillways at Baihetan Hydroelectric Dam Oskar Dahl Jack Lönn Master of Science Thesis KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management Energy Technology EGI_2016-049 EKV1148 Division of Heat and Power Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Master of Science Thesis EGI_2016-049 EKV1148 Design Optimization of Spillways at Baihetan Hydroelectric Dam Oskar Dahl Jack Lönn Approved Examiner Supervisor 2016-06-20 Björn Laumert James Yang Commissioner Contact person Energiforsk AB & Vattenfall AB James Yang Abstract China’s economic prosperity has led to a massive development in the hydropower sector. The Baihetan hydropower project is an ongoing construction and will become the third largest hydroelectric power plant in the world in regards to generating capacity and is projected to be finished in the year 2020. For every fault that an investment this massive has, it will lead to enormous cost and safety risks. Therefore the standards for every detail are especially high to ensure the success of its future operation. One of the risks is from the water jet impact on the downstream stilling basin that can cause erosion on the riverbed. The evaluation of this risk has previously been carried out by an experimental scaled model at the Department of Hydraulic Engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. This thesis will however evaluate the potential of exposing these risks and analyzing methods to minimize them through Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis. A Computational Fluid Dynamics model of a surface hole spillway was created in order to be compared and validated against the experimental results. The results in longitudinal direction are in good agreement with the experimental results, with an accuracy of the numerical model being 91% for the longitudinal distance and 98% for the longitudinal spread.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Coulee Dam
    Grand Coulee Dam Grand Coulee Dam Pool Elevation for selected water years to represent wet, Fish Hatcheries average, and dry conditions for Grand Coulee Dam, WA. Grand Coulee Dam includes three major Grand Coulee Dam funds a complex of three fish hatcheries hydroelectric power generating plants (Leavenworth, Winthrop and Entiat), collectively known as the (named Third, Left, and Right) and the Leavenworth Complex, to mitigate for the loss of anadromous fish John W. Keys III Pump-Generating above the dam. Over 2 million spring Chinook and summer Plant. The facilities provide power steelhead are raised annually. generation, irrigation, flood risk management, and streamflow regulation Recreation (feet) for fish migration. Additional incidental Grand Coulee Dam creates Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Lake. The benefits include flows for navigation and lake stretches 151 miles with about 500 miles of shoreline. The recreation. Grand Coulee Dam is the lake is co-managed by the National Park Service, Confederated 2003 (Dry with no DGM) main feature of the Columbia Basin Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Bureau 2015 (Dry with DGM) Project. of Reclamation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2008 (Average) Pool Elevation 2011 (Wet) Authorization Water Operations DGM=drum gate maintenance Grand Coulee Dam operations are closely coordinated to benefit a Authorized under the National Industrial Recovery Act and later the 1935 Rivers and wide range of needs including hydropower, flood risk management, Harbors Act, the Left Power House was completed in 1941. The Right Power House was irrigation, recreation, and operations to benefit resident and completed in 1948. The Third Power Plant was completed in 1975.
    [Show full text]