Next Article in Journal
A Revised Method of Surface Water Quality Evaluation Based on Background Values and Its Application to Samples Collected in Heilongjiang Province, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring Explicit Delay Time for Volume Compensation in Feedforward Control of Canal Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Stormwater Retention and Reuse at the Residential Plot Level—Green Roof Experiment and Water Balance Computations for Long-Term Use in Cyprus
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Integrated Hydrological-CFD Model for Estimating Bacterial Levels in Stormwater Ponds
Article Menu
Issue 5 (May) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Experimental Hydraulic Investigation of Angled Fish Protection Systems—Comparison of Circular Bars and Cables

1
Unit of Hydraulic Engineering, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 13, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2
School of Engineering, Institute for Energy Systems, FloWave Ocean Energy Research Facility, The University of Edinburgh, Max Born Crescent, Edinburgh EH9 3BF, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(5), 1056; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051056
Received: 23 April 2019 / Revised: 13 May 2019 / Accepted: 14 May 2019 / Published: 21 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Hydraulics Research)
  |  
PDF [13321 KB, uploaded 21 May 2019]
  |     |  

Abstract

The requirements for fish protection at hydro power plants have led to a significant decrease of the bar spacing at trash racks as well as the need of an inclined or angled design to improve the guidance effect (fish-friendly trash racks). The flexible fish fence (FFF) is a new developed fish protection and guidance system, created by horizontally arranged steel cables instead of bars. The presented study investigated experimentally the head loss coefficient of an angled horizontal trash rack with circular bars (CBTR) and the FFF with identical cross sections in a flume (scale 1:2). Nine configurations of different bar and cable spacing (blockage ratio) and rack angles were studied for CBTR and FFF considering six different stationary flow conditions. The results demonstrate that head loss coefficient is independent from the studied Bar–Reynolds number range and increases with increasing blockage ratio and angle. At an angle of 30 degrees, a direct comparison between the two different rack options was conducted to investigate the effect of cable vibrations. At the lowest blockage ratio, head loss for both options are in similar very low ranges, while the head loss coefficient of the FFF increases significantly compared to the CBTR with an increase of blockage. Further, the results indicate a moderate overestimation with the predicted head loss by common head loss equations developed for inclined vertical trash racks. Thus, an adaption of the design equation is proposed to improve the estimation of head loss on both rack options. View Full-Text
Keywords: fish protection; head loss; intake; hydraulics of renewable energy systems; hydraulic structure design and management; scale model test fish protection; head loss; intake; hydraulics of renewable energy systems; hydraulic structure design and management; scale model test
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Böttcher, H.; Gabl, R.; Aufleger, M. Experimental Hydraulic Investigation of Angled Fish Protection Systems—Comparison of Circular Bars and Cables. Water 2019, 11, 1056.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top