Home  |   active threads |  archived threads |  create account  |  login
Search 
 

Home> All Topics > Tools and Methods > Question on methods to address daily peaking

 

Question on methods to address daily peaking
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear eFlowNet list members,

there are a couple of tools and methods available for analysing changes to a hydrological regime, such as the Indicators of Hydrological Alterations (IHA). To my knowledge all are based on mean daily flows, which is too low resolution in this case where I have flows ranging from 0 to 300 m3/s and back to 0 again within a period of 10 hours (downstream a peaking hydropower station).

Is anyone familar with a method or tool that provides me with more representative indicators on for example rate of change, in a case with daily peaking? One such example is the Baker Flashiness Index, but it does not differentiate between increasing and decreasing flows, nor rate of change. Has anyone experienced the same problem?

Thanks and regards

Peter Bergsten
Environmental Expert
Pöyry Swedpower AB
peter.bergsten@swedpower.com

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


You can use unsteady flow hydraulic modeling tool such as HEC-RAS, where inputs will be hourly flow reflecting operating regimes. The tool will simulate hydrographs of hourly flows at your desired locations downstream. You would be able to compare pre- and post-project hydrographs simulated by the tool.

=================================
Mohammad Sajjad Khan, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Regional Hydrologist, Northern Region
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
199 Larch St., Suite # 1201
Sudbury ON P3E 5P9
Tel: 705-564-3062; Fax: 705-564-4180
Email: mohammad.khan@ontario.ca

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Peter,

This may be helpful:

Zimmerman, J. K. H., Nislow, K. H., Letcher, B. H., and Magilligan, F. J. 2009. Determining the effects of dams on subdaily variation in river flows at a whole-basin scale. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.1324
Good luck,
Eloise

Eloise Kendy, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Flows Program
The Nature Conservancy
North America Region
415 Monroe Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601
USA
Tel: +1 406 495 9910
ekendy@tnc.org
nature.org/freshwaters

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter

Perhaps you could let your members know that after 45 years of advocacy, the Snowy River will finally see a real flushing flow.

The flow has commenced and will peak on 10, 11, 12 October reaching around 12 GIG per day to a total of approx 84 GIGS over 19 days.

This will bring the ANF for the Snowy River below Jindabyne Dam wall to 15% with a target of 21% by 2015 and eventually 28% ANF for the river or around 30% Maximum Sustainable Diversion Limit.

The same does not apply for the Upper Snowy River with maximum extraction (100%) at Island Bend Dam wall.

These websites have more information:
http://www.snowyriveralliance.com.au/
http://www.snowyriver.com/


Regards


Acacia Rose
Alpine Riverkeeper
acaciarose@optusnet.com.au

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter, the best solution is put few water level probe with five minutes resolution for some time (week or month) and you will have proper anwear. There is no posibility to extract more data on short term process from daily data.
Best regards, Mitja Brilly [mbrilly@fgg.uni-lj.si]

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Not sure this is exactly what you are looking for but may provide some useful ideas on how we analyzed the impact of subdaily variation at the scale for the watershed:
http://www.eflownet.org/downloads/documents/Zimmerman&al2009.pdf

Best regards,

Kim Lutz

Kimberly A. Lutz
Director, Connecticut River Program

klutz@tnc.org
(413) 584-1016 (Phone)
(413) 320-1708 (Mobile)
(413) 584-1017 (Fax)

nature.org

Visit our Connecticut River web page at nature.org/ctriver

The Nature Conservancy
A Program of the Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont Chapters
25 Main Street
Suite 220
Northampton, MA 01060

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Mr Bergsten,

A method has been developed in France, by the Ecohydraulic Pole ONEMA-IMFT-CEMAGREF, to select and characterize hydropeaks and induced perturbations. It can be applied on every type of flow data, generally hourly or less to correctly describe short duration peaks. The time spacing of flow data can be either constant or variable. Each increasing and decreasing peak is characterized (base flow, maximum flow, rate of change, range…), and global statistics are provided over the whole analysed period. A synthetic indicator is then produced to sum up the level of hydrologic perturbation due to hydropeaks (five levels from noticeable perturbation to very severe perturbation). A graphical representation of hydropeaks regimes is also proposed.

You can find here (http://www.onema.fr/IMG/pdf/2008_028.pdf) a first report (in French) which presents the principles of peak selection method, and of indicator construction. You can find below a second report (also in French) on characterization of natural increasing and decreasing rate of change. These results are used to define criteria for considering a peak as a perturbation or not.
(http://www.extranet.eau-adour-garonne.fr/download.asp?download=stockfile/commun/internet/documents/etudes_sdcp/rapport-gradients-naturels-def-2010-09.pdf)

A second version of the selection method and indicator has been constructed during 2011 and applied to 85 stations influenced by hydropeaking management (more than 500 year of flow data). The report is under progress. This work should be published in English in 2012. The Excel program should be available in the same time.

Best regards,

Dominique Courret
Engineer at Ecohydraulic Pole ONEMA-IMFT-CEMAGREF www.onema.fr ; www.imft.fr ; www.cemagref.fr

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter,

Maybe this is a useful approach? http://www.eflownet.org/downloads/documents/Verdonschot&vandenHoorn2010.pdf

Best regards,
Piet

_____________________________________

Dr. ir. Piet F.M. Verdonschot
Freshwater Ecology
Alterra, Wageningen UR
P.O. Box 47
6700 AA Wageningen
The Netherlands
tel.: ++31 317486552
e-mail: piet.verdonschot@wur.nl
www.alterra.nl
www.eu-star.at
www.eurolimpacs.ucl.ac.uk
www.refresh.ucl.ac.uk
http://www.alterra.wur.nl/UK/research/Specialisation+Ecosystem+Studies/verdonschotperson/

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


We have faced the same problem in streams draining the montane tropics.

The following link is a short article on the subject by Colin Phillips, a UPenn PhD student dealing with the same issue: http://www.eflownet.org/downloads/documents/Phillips&Scatena2010.pdf

We hope to do more on the subject in the near future and are interested in continuing the dialog.

F.N. Scatena [fns@sas.upenn.edu]

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter Bergsten,

I’m Vlad Shamov, hydrologist in Vladivostok, opposite edge of Eurasian continent.
As I understood you deal to a not natural stream controlled by a dam (peaking HPS), am I right?
1) we, in the Hydrology and Climatology Lab (please, refer my job place below), use an original Flood Cycle Model (by my chief Dr. Boris Gartsman) based on the low resolution hydrological data being mostly obtained to date on the Russian State Hydrological and Weather Monitoring Service's network. This model has appeared to be quite effective to predict the small river dynamic (with the catchment area up to 1,000 - 2,000 sq. km).
2) simultaneously, we elaborate a more precise model on the basis of detailed registration of hydrological conditions (f.i., 15-min resolution) – water level and temperature in a small experimental mountain stream, combined with relevant detailed precipitation rate data. For this, we use a small leveloggers by Solinst Co. (to register the water level in the stream) and a rainlogger by Delta-T Co. The mentioned equipment looks not so expensive even for Russian science :-))) - last year it was about $10,000 for us.

So, if you need to get more info, I would be glad to tell you.
--
Sincerely,
Vladimir Shamov, PhD, Ass. Prof.
IAHS and PUB member
Senior Researcher at the Lab. for Hydrology and Climatology Pacific Geography Inst., Far East Branch, Russ. Academy of Sciences
7 Radio Str. 690041 Vladivostok Russia
Tel.: +7 4232 312857
http://tig.dvo.ru/index/shamov_vladimir_vladimirovich/0-240
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=100000209873931

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Hi Peter,

Unfortunately I do not know of a tool to better assess daily peaking. I would be very interested in one though if it is suggested to you through this request. Thank you and good luck,

Mat [MLebel@WWFCanada.org]

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Hi Peter,

I do a lot of analytical work on instream flow issues related to large powerplant operations on the Columbia River here in Canada. From an analytical perspective, one can take the first derivative (slope) of the discharge curve over time and create an array of statistics that deal with ramping rates, both positive and negative, in addition to length of high or low stable flows. Not sure why one would like to create a single number of something that has so much information, where you can create multiple parameters to address the issue and provides analysis of biological responses. Probably my approach is because I came from a statistical background and a biologist, with little formal training in hydrology, and think of what impacts the biota most and try to develop physical parameters that are most likely of interest and look for correlations with biological responses. Not sure if this is useful, but with such extreme operations, even small minimum flows and decreases in ramping rates would like provide an immediate signal in the benthic biota based on much of the published work.

Regards


________________________________________
Dana Schmidt (Ph.D.) | Associate-Senior Fisheries Biologist/Limnologist | Golder Associates Ltd.
201 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, BC Canada V1N 1A2
T: +01 250 364 0344| D:+01 250 365 0344 Ext 227| F:+01 250 365 0988| C:+01 250 304 8837| E: Dana_Schmidt@golder.com | www.golder.com

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Peter, 3 fundamental principles:
1. Rates of flow rise should not exceed natural rates of flow rise
2. Rates of flow recession should not exceed natural rates of flow recession
3. Minimum flow should mimic natural seasonally variable minimum flows.
Where hydro-peaking breaks these rules a secondary re-regulating pond should be built.
I thought the peaking ranges you describe went out of fashion 20 years ago. Obviously not. Such peaking regimes are never good for a river no matter how much you analyse the magnitude and frequency of switching. But Jack Stanford’s paper (Regulated Rivers 1996, 12, 391-414) used a frequency of flow reversal analysis that was a useful descriptive method to illustrate differences between regulated and natural regimes. Good Luck. Geoff Petts [G.Petts@westminster.ac.uk]

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Hi Peter.

I’ve been involved in a few Environmental Flow studies dealing with peaking power and was wondering for what purpose you are trying to quantify the changes in flow/peaking? We have used a DRIFT model which has indicators selected for peaking power (rate of change; size of peaks etc) and then we ascribe the ecological impacts to these indicators to derive overall expected ecological impacts for different flow scenarios. We’ve used this approach successfully on a several World Bank studies involving peaking hydropower. There are however no models that I know of that only focus on the hydrological aspects as you request, but if you find any that are able to address this I would be very interested.

Kind regards,

Mark


Mark W. Rountree

Fluvius Environmental Consultants
Managing water for the environment

Tel: +27 82 880 4393
Fax: +27 86 503 8168

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter,

The answer depends on what you would like to compare.
Why not use 'lower resolution' and average over longer time scales?

Best, Michael [info@hydrology.nl]

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Peter,

This may be helpful:

Zimmerman, J. K. H., Nislow, K. H., Letcher, B. H., and Magilligan, F. J. 2009. Determining the effects of dams on subdaily variation in river flows at a whole-basin scale. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.1324

http://www.eflownet.org/downloads/documents/Zimmerman&al2009.pdf

Good luck,
Eloise

Eloise Kendy, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Flows Program
The Nature Conservancy
North America Region
415 Monroe Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601
USA
Tel: +1 406 495 9910
ekendy@tnc.org
nature.org/freshwaters

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter,
I found similar problems that ones related by you. I have tried to use 5 minutes natural flow measures in order to evaluate the possibility to reproduce the rate of change caused by the intranual floods. I did not feel so comfortable with this method because hydropeaks will be reproduced daily and <0.3-0.5 year time period floods are eventually produced.

I have try the use of hydraulic/habitat river models in order to evaluate % of river surface that overpass the critical swinging capacities of different stages of more sensitive and/or protected species. Try to keep 30-50% of surface as refuge during peeking should be a good objective. The results obtained by this method were used to define restoration measures in order to guarantee refuge and a lamination downstream small reservoir in order to distribute the peak in a average daily flow moduled according by the hydropower reservoir inflows patterns. Anyway this methodology requires a high resources and model calibration is highly recommended.

I hope this help you.
Best regards,
Jose M. Hernandez Torres
Environmental Engineering and Planning Manager
Mediterranean Region Headquarters

t: (+34) 963 379 220 (Ext. 300) | (+34) 647 680 903
f: (+34) 963 371 429 skype: josem.hernandeztorres

http://www.tecnoma.es
?: C/ Botiguers nº 5, 5ª planta.
Parque Empresarial Táctica.
CP-46980. Paterna, Valencia. Spain.

Top |  Bottom
Stefano Barchiesi

Total Posts: 52
Member Since:

Posted: 10-Jan-2012


Dear Peter

I am not sure of the purpose for which you require a peaking power index, but for EF assessments, and planning, we have used the following in combination with others – on hourly data:

- Standard deviation of hourly flows
- Hourly min discharge
- Duration of hourly minimum discharge
- Rate of rise and fall

These are not indices but indicators that we calculate for each season in each year – i.e., a time series approach.

Best
Cate

Dr C.A. Brown
Southern Waters ER&C cc
Cape Town
South Africa

Telephone: +27-21-4653135
Fax: +27-21-4653901

Top |  Bottom