1 / 41

Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report)

Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report). November 4, 2008. Agenda. 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Introductions Water Temperature Models Development Progress Report Reservoir Modeling River Modeling Interim Model Application and Testing Data Next Steps and Schedule

tobias-duncan
Télécharger la présentation

Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Middle Fork ProjectFlow and Temperature Modeling(Status Report) November 4, 2008

  2. Agenda • 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM • Introductions • Water Temperature Models Development Progress Report • Reservoir Modeling • River Modeling • Interim Model Application and Testing • Data • Next Steps and Schedule • 12:00 PM • Adjourn

  3. Principal Project Tasks: Status • Model Implementation/Construction • Reservoirs (complete) • Rivers (Rubicon complete, MF in progress) • Tunnel (complete - relationship) • Model Calibration • Reservoirs • French Meadows – draft (2006-07) • Hell Hole – draft (2006-07) • Ralston – in progress • Rivers (pending) • Tunnel model calibration (complete - relationship) • Other Tasks • model refinement • River Geometry • Technology transfer (ongoing)

  4. Outline • Reservoirs • French Meadows and Hell Hole • Ralston Afterbay • Rivers • Rubicon • Middle Fork (above Ralston Afterbay) • Middle Fork (below Ralston Afterbay) • Tunnels • Data relationship

  5. Reservoirs • French Meadows and Hell Hole • Refined calibration • Geometry • Wind sheltering considerations • Assumptions (a and b are constant among reservoirs, wind sheltering differs, etc.) • 2006, 2007 results

  6. Hell Hole Geometry

  7. Wind sheltering • Meteorological data may not be representative of the effect over the reservoirs • (Location of met station) • Effect of wind sheltering may be different for the different part of the reservoir and different time of the year • Apply different wind sheltering values for upstream and downstream of the reservoirs seasonally

  8. Hell Hole • Rubicon River and Five Lakes Creek inflow combine as one input • Weighted averaged input water temperature is applied • RR1 is used for missing FL1 data

  9. French Meadows, 2006Segment 23

  10. French Meadows, 2006 Segment 17

  11. French Meadows, 2007Segment 23

  12. French Meadows, 2007Segment 17

  13. Hell Hole, 2006

  14. Hell Hole, 2007

  15. Ralston Reservoir • Geometry • Highly detailed (run time ~90 min) • Modified (run time ~ 18 min) • Inflows and outflows • Actual • Water balance model representation • Ralston PH and Rubicon River inflows together • Water Temperature • Placeholder data

  16. Ralston Reservoir geometry – high resolution

  17. Ralston Reservoir geometry- reduced

  18. Ralston Inflows and Outflows MF American River Oxbow PH MFA OPH Ralston Reservoir Ralston Afterbay Ralston PH RR+RPH RAB Rubicon River Water balance model representation

  19. Ralston Inflow Temperature MF10 OX1 RR4 Water temperature data availability

  20. Ralston Reservoir Results (steady state)

  21. Rivers • General • All meteorological data are complete • All temperature data are complete • Geometry X-Y-Z data complete • All shade files are complete • In progress • Cross sectional data • Sub-daily flow data

  22. Rubicon • Implementation assumptions • Estimated cross sectional geometry • Flow: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation • Water temperatures: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation • Relationship to span alluvium • Next Steps • Cross section geometry • Final simulated temperatures below Hell Hole (CE-QUAL-W2)

  23. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions

  24. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions

  25. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions • Objective: Estimate appropriate boundary condition in alluvial section at headwater under spill and non-spill condition. • Headwater of the Rubicon River model was placed at RR3 because of the dry alluvial reach upstream. • Develop dual criteria to provide river inflow temperature boundary condition • When Hell Hole Dam is spilling: • RR3 Tw is similar to Hell Hole spill Tw – Large flows overwhelm small releases from the dam and short transit time yields minimum opportunity for heating. • Potential lag effect at RR3 Tw – Due to the spill filling alluvium and then slowly released. • When Hell Hole Dam is not spilling: • Between RR2 and RR3, Tw difference of about 2oF in June. It diminishes to nearly 0oF by October 1st. • Linear relationship assumed from terminus of spill to mid-October.

  26. Rubicon River-Ralston Interface

  27. MF American • Middle Fork above Ralston • Implementation assumptions • Estimated cross sectional geometry • Flows • Characterization of Interbay • Temperatures (simulated from French Meadows) • Next Steps • Cross section geometry • Refinement at Interbay • Sub-daily flow representation • Final simulated temperatures below French Meadows • Middle Fork below Ralston – in progress

  28. MFAR (French Meadows-Ralston) Grid Interbay

  29. MFAR (French Meadows-Ralston) Grid

  30. Sub-daily Flow Representation • Water Balance Model Disaggregation • Use production data to estimate sub-daily flow signal (ECORP)  • Discrepancies existed.  • Scaled flows such that sub-daily flows captured daily flow totals

  31. River Reach Cross Sections • Representative cross sections for each habitat type (in each reach) will be formulated and assigned to the longitudinal profile consistent with the habitat typing.  All habitat types will be assessed to identify representative cross sections • Cross sections based on habitat types: HGR, LGR, RUN, and POOL (no cascades included).  • Habitat designations were examined at three spatial densities: 25, 50, and 100 m inter-node spacing

  32. River Reach Cross Sections • Elements consist of 3 nodes.  Assume that the top two nodes of each element represent the habitat type.  The lower most node is common between adjacent elements.  Because the finite element model integrates between nodes this lower node in the element serves approximately as a "transition" between adjacent element habitat types. • Scheme will be tested and refined as necessary • Cross sectional area and surface width will be mapped from actual cross sections to a trapezoidal form to preserve the area and width in an appropriate fashion. • Additionally, to improve pool representation in (depths and velocities), slope factors will be used for all pool elements.  The riffles and runs will not be represented with explicit slope factors unless the need arises.

  33. Stream Cross Section Representation Map Area And Width

  34. Actual Cross Sections

  35. Actual Cross Sections

  36. Actual Cross Sections

  37. Actual Cross Sections

  38. Tunnel Work • Heating assessment based on field data • Filter data • Daily Average • Sub-daily data • Peaking periods • With transition removed • Lagging temperatures – based on travel time through tunnel at plant flow rate

  39. French Meadows Power House Daily temperature Temperature differences (70% 0.26oF or less)

  40. Ralston Power House Daily temperature Temperature differences (90% 1oF or less, 0.56oF at full pipe)

  41. Rate of heating • Approximately Linear, minimal heating • Rate of heating is approximately 0.015oF per 1000 feet • Recommend using this relationship Ralston Ralston French Meadows FrenchMeadows

More Related