Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 898–906 | Cite as

Efforts to Reduce Mortality to Hydroelectric Turbine-Passed Fish: Locating and Quantifying Damaging Shear Stresses

  • Glenn Čada
  • James Loar
  • Laura Garrison
  • Richard FisherJr.
  • Duane Neitzel


Severe fluid forces are believed to be a source of injury and mortality to fish that pass through hydroelectric turbines. A process is described by which laboratory bioassays, computational fluid dynamics models, and field studies can be integrated to evaluate the significance of fluid shear stresses that occur in a turbine. Areas containing potentially lethal shear stresses were identified near the stay vanes and wicket gates, runner, and in the draft tube of a large Kaplan turbine. However, under typical operating conditions, computational models estimated that these dangerous areas comprise less than 2% of the flow path through the modeled turbine. The predicted volumes of the damaging shear stress zones did not correlate well with observed fish mortality at a field installation of this turbine, which ranged from less than 1% to nearly 12%. Possible reasons for the poor correlation are discussed. Computational modeling is necessary to develop an understanding of the role of particular fish injury mechanisms, to compare their effects with those of other sources of injury, and to minimize the trial and error previously needed to mitigate those effects. The process we describe is being used to modify the design of hydroelectric turbines to improve fish passage survival.


Hydroelectric turbine Fish Fluid Stresses Mortality 



We thank Mike Sale and Fotis Sotiropoulos for their ideas and suggestions during the conduct of this effort. Chuck Coutant and Brennan Smith of the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, commented on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

Literature Cited

  1. AEA (AEA Technology Engineering Software Ltd). 2000. CFX-TASCflow computational fluid dynamics software primer documentation version 2.10. 554 Parkside Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Brookshier, P. A., J. V. Flynn, and R. R. Loose. 1995. 21st century Advanced Hydropower Turbine System. Pages 2003–2008, in Waterpower ‘95. Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower. American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown S., R. Fisher, S. Hammond, J. Lukas, D. Mathur, P. Heisey 2004. Testing the effects of DOE advanced hydro turbine system design features on fish passage survival at Wanapum Dam. Proceedings of HydroVision 2004, HCI Publications, lnc , Kansas City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  4. Čada G. F. 2001. The development of advanced hydroelectric turbines to improve fish passage survival. Fisheries 26:14–23Google Scholar
  5. Čada G. F., C. C. Coutant, R R. Whitney. 1997. Development of biological criteria for the design of advanced hydropower turbines. DOE/ID-10578, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  6. Čada G. F., M. G. Ryon, D. A. Wolf, B. T. Smith. 2003. Development of a new technique to assess susceptibility to predation resulting from sublethal stresses (indirect mortality). ORNL/TM-2003/195. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  7. CEI (Computational Engineering International, Inc.). 2000. Ensight user manual for version 7.1. P.O. Box 14306, Research Triangle Park, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  8. Coutant C. C. 1973. Effect of thermal shock on vulnerability of juvenile salmonids to predation. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30: 965–973Google Scholar
  9. EPRI. 2000. Technical evaluation of the utility of intake approach velocity as an indicator of potential adverse environmental impact under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). Technical report 1000731. Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Franke, G.F., D R. Webb, R. K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P. N. Hopping, P. A. March, M. R. Headrick, I. T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of environmentally advanced hydropower turbine design concepts. Voith Hydro Inc. report No. 2677-0141 to the U. S. Department of Energy, Idaho Falls, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrison, L. A., R. K. Fisher, Jr., M. J. Sale, and G. F. Čada. 2002. Application of biological design criteria and computational fluid dynamics to investigate fish survival in Kaplan turbines. Proceedings of HydroVision 2002. HCI Publications, Inc., Kansas City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, S. C., F. Sotiropoulos, and M. J. Sale. 2002. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent circular jet flows. DOE/ID-10971. U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Falls, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  13. Jungwirth M., S. Schmutz, S. Wiess (eds.). 1998. Fish migration and fish bypasses, Fishing News Books, Farnham, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin F., G. E. Hecker, T. C. Cook. 2004. Understanding turbine fish passage survival using CFD. Proceedings of HydroVision 2002. HCI Publications, Inc., Kansas City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  15. Neitzel D. A., D. D. Dauble, G. F. Čada, M. C. Richmond, G. R. Guensch, R. P. Mueller, C. S. Abernethy, B. Amidan. 2004. Survival estimates for juvenile fish subjected to a laboratory-generated shear environment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Normandeau Associates, Inc., J. R. Skalski, and Mid Columbia Consulting, Inc. 1996. Fish survival investigation relative to turbine rehabilitation at Wanapum Dam, Columbia River, Washington. Report prepared for Grant County Public Utility District No. 2, Ephrata, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson F. W. 1984. Vertical distribution of juvenile salmonids entering the turbine intakes at Wanapum Dam. Prepared for Grant County PUD by CH2M Hill, Ephrata, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Pavlov D. S., A. I. Lupandin, and V. V. Kostin 2002. Downstream migration of fish through dams of hydroelectric power plants. Translated from Russian by T. Albert. G. Čada (translation ed.). ORNL/TR-02/02. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryon, M. G., G. F. Čada, and J. G. Smith. 2004. Further tests of changes in fish escape behavior resulting from sublethal stresses associated with hydroelectric turbine passage. ORNL/TM-2003/288. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  20. Turnpenny A W H. 1998. Mechanisms offish damage in low-head turbines: An experimental appraisal. In: M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, S Wiess (eds.), Fish migration and fish bypasses. Fishing News Books, Farnham, UK. Pages 300–314Google Scholar
  21. Turnpenny, A. W. H., M. H. Davis, J. M. Fleming, J. K. Davies. 1992. Experimental studies relating to the passage of fish and shrimps through tidal power turbines. Marine and Freshwater Biology Unit, National Power, Fawley, Southhampton, Hampshire, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  22. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1995. Proceedings: 1995 turbine passage survival workshop. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  23. Vogel S. 1994. Life in moving fluids: The physical biology of flow. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  24. WCD (World Commission on Dams). 2000. Dams and development: A new framework for decisionmaking. Report of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan Publications, Landon, EnglandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn Čada
    • 1
  • James Loar
    • 1
  • Laura Garrison
    • 2
  • Richard FisherJr.
    • 3
  • Duane Neitzel
    • 4
  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.York College of PennsylvaniaYorkUSA
  3. 3.Voith-Siemens Hydro Power Generation, Inc.YorkUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations