FIThydrowiki - User contributions [en]

File:Testcase presentation Las Rives.pdf

2021-06-07T05:20:39Z

Laurent: Laurent uploaded a new version of File:Testcase presentation Las Rives.pdf

File:Testcase presentation Trois Villes.pdf

2021-05-10T23:18:04Z

Laurent: Laurent uploaded a new version of File:Testcase presentation Trois Villes.pdf

File:Testcase presentation Gotein.pdf

2021-05-10T23:15:38Z

Laurent: Laurent uploaded File:Testcase presentation Gotein.pdf

[[File:Testcase presentation GOT V4.pdf|thumb|Testcase presentation Gotein]]

Las Rives test case

2020-11-01T10:11:38Z

Laurent: /* Results */

[[Category:Test cases]]
{{Fact box for Las Rives}}
{{Relevant SMTDs for Las Rives}}

=Introduction=
The Test Case is located on the river Ariège in the South of France, between Crampagna and Varilhes. The dam of Labarre at the upstream part of the water body constitutes a block to upstream migration and participates to the regulation of flows with its reservoir of 400 000 m3 (17.6 ha).

The hydrology of the Ariège is characterized by a sustained flows in winter, high water levels in spring due to snow melting and low water period from August to October. During the downstream migration period of smolts (March, April, May) the mean monthly discharges range from 41.3 m3/s in March to 79.1 m3/s in May.

The hydropower plant of Las Rives is part of a section of 20 km with 5 hydropower plants. Altogether, there are 7 further HPPs are located upstream and downstream of the Test Case.

=About the hydropower plant=
The HPP of Las Rives is downstream the station of Foix. It has an installed capacity of 2.7 MW and a mean inter-annual discharge of about 41.8 m3/s. There are several creeks and one watercourse flowing into the Ariège before the HPP Las Rives.
===Layout===
The HPP of Las Rives is an run-off-river HPP which bypass reach is 580 meters long.
===The Operator: ONDULIA===
ONDULIA is a green energy producer. It owns 10 hydropower plants, 8 wind farms and one photovoltaic roof. This represents an installed capacity of 77MW thanks to 64 turbines. The mean annual production of their installations is around 180 million kWh, corresponding to the consumption of a city of 70 000 inhabitants. [https://www.ondulia.com/ Read more.]

=Test case topics=
===Downstream migration===
To protect the fish on their downstream migration, the rack in front of the hydropower plant was changed in 2014. Its location was changed from the power plant to the head of the headrace channel. The bar screen with a length of 14m is now located in the head of the headrace channel on the left bank, allowing the integration of the downstream migration flow into the instream flow. There are 3 downstream migration outlets at the top of the bar screen and migration duct, which sections increase with closeness to the downstream migration channel. At the outlet of the downstream migration channel the fish fall from a height of 3.4m into 63 cm of water when the total discharge of the river is smaller than 48.5 m3/s. This low water depth poses question about the conditions of landing of fishes in the pool. An experiment will start in spring 2018 to evaluate the effect of the fall on fishes.
===Upstream migration===
An alternate vertical slot passe is located at the upstream angle of the water intake weir (point of higher rising, right bank). The flow in the fishpass is 0.5 m3/s. 2.75 m3/s of complementary attraction flow are turbined by a new DIVE turbine (2017) at the right bank of the fishpass associated to a fish-friendly bar screen.
===E-flow===
In France, the law of 2006 (LEMA) imposes an e-flow of 1/10 of the mean inter-annual discharge before 1rst January 2014. For the environmental flow in the bypass section a minimum value equal to a tenth of the mean inter-annual discharge of the water course is chosen, which is 4.35 m3/s at Las Rives. In 2001, the E-flow was about 5 m3/s, and thereby greater than the minimum value.

In Las Rives, the operator found a compromise with the authorities to improve downstream migration conditions of fishes by the replacement of the former rack with a more efficient fish friendly trash rack and in return they installed a Dive turbine in order to use a part of the instream flow (2.75 m3/s of the attraction flow of the fish ladder). The operator increased its production and decreased the global mortality rate of the HPP. The replacement of the rack led to higher head losses.

=Pressures on the water body's ecosystem=
Due to 7 hydropower plants located on the Ariège the continuity of the water body is highly affected. Agricultural practices, with their use of pesticides, also have a significant effect on the river.
The Ariège is a low water replenishment for the river Garonne. While there is a water storage upstream of this water body, the upstream hydropeaking management does influence the Ariège’s flow, leaving it with a moderate hydrology and morphology.
=Research objectives and tasks=
At Las Rives the ways for a fish friendly water intake and reception pool are being investigated. For this, the efficiency of the fish friendly water intake is tested and a hydraulic model is done to determine the attractiveness of the bypass. Different shapes of outlets are tested. The effect of consecutive hydropower plants on downstream migration delay of fishes is assessed.
===Research tasks===
The research tasks and field studies conducted at Las Rives are:

* Assessment of the efficiency of a fishfriendly water intake by fish tracking
* Hydraulic measurement in front of the inclined bar rack
* Hydraulic modelling of the water intake
* Studying the hydraulic conditions at the end of the downstream migration duct
* Scenario modelling of several downstream migration measures

=Results=
The Las Rives test case is a medium HPP with a fish friendly water intake in which is tested an inclined bar rack with several technical solutions. The efficiency of the inclined low bar spacing trashrack has been validated by radio telemetry for smolts (81% of efficiency) and eels (100% of efficiency). No cumulative effect on different successive HPPs has been shown during these tests. Depending on the river discharge, the fishes use bypasses as well as the overspill weir. ADCP measurements have been conducted at four cross-sections for different flow discharges, that show well-predicted normal and tangential components of the upstream velocity. This has also been validated by 3D modelling highlighting the attractiveness of the three bypasses, and confirmed by bypass discharge measurements. The landing conditions of the fishes at the foot of the control weir ending the downstream migration duct has also been studied and showed some fish damages (about 30%) which should bring on some modification of the landing zone. Finally, scenario modeling is proposed to see the cost effective solutions for the downstream migration on this site and promote the retained solution. Seven scenario have been compared for the downstream migration and were first analyzed and compared regarding monitoring and production calculation and then implement in a probabilistic network to assess the trade-off between downstream migration efficiency, productivity, and costs of the infrastructures for each scenario.

<gallery mode=packed>
LasRives1.jpg|350px|Las Rives hydropower plant
LasRives2.jpg|350px|Bar screen out of water
LasRives3.jpg|350px|Bar screen in water
LasRives4.jpg|350px|Dump valve for sediments
LasRives5.jpg|350px|Outlet of the downstream migration channel
LasRives6.jpg|350px|Upstream view of the old fish pass
LasRives7.jpg|350px|Fish pass and the new DIVE turbine on the bypassed reach

Las_rives_ADCP_support.png|350px|Support and movement carts system allowing the deployment of the ADCP.
Las_rives_ADCP_output1.png|350px|ADCP cartography of V_t/V_0.
Las_rives_ADCP_output2.png|350px|ADCP cartography of V_n/V_0.
LasRives8.jpg|350px|Passage routes of downstream migrating silver eels at Las Rives, overall in spring 2017 and 2018 (Tomanova S, 2019).
LasRives9.jpg|350px|Measurement with an electro-magnetic flow meter in the downstream migration duct

</gallery>

==References==
* Tomanova S, Courret D, Mercier O, Richard S, De-Oliveira E, Mataix V, Lagarrigue T, Frey A, Tetard S. 2019. Efficiency of downstream passage devices to protect migrating silver eels assessed with radiotelemetry. 5th International Conference on Fish Telemetry, Arendal, Norway, 2019, June 24th-28th., 2019.

* Lemkecher F, David L, Courret D, and Chatellier C, 2018. Field measurements of the attractivity of bypasses for fishfriendly trashrack. Riverflow 2018, 5/8 septembre, Lyon. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184003039

Upstream fish migration

2020-06-01T17:31:51Z

Laurent:

=Introduction=
[[File:upstream_migration_fishway.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Old concrete fishway for brown trout in River Loen, Norway.]]

Many fish species migrate in rivers to utilize different habitats at different life stages for spawning, growth and wintering. For many species, migrations are carried out within the same river, while others migrate from their spawning grounds and rearing habitats in rivers to the feeding grounds in the ocean (anadromous behaviour). The European eel displays a catadromous behaviour, with its spawning area located in the Sargasso Sea while they feed along the coasts and in rivers and lakes in Europe. Basically, all fish species show some sort of migratory behaviour or regular movements.
In most European rivers and streams there are artificial migratory obstacles and barriers, such as culverts, weirs, dams and power stations. Hydroelectric dams and their tailrace areas represent particular migration challenges. These dams restrict fish migrations and alter the natural habitat for many fish species. This problem is particularly evident for anadromous fishes for which viable populations depend on successful migration from breeding grounds to the ocean and return migrations to spawning grounds. Re-establishment of migration routes is essential to re-introduce or enhance these populations across their distribution areas.

Construction of fish passage facilities is widely used to mitigate migration barriers. The first documented fish passes in the 18th century were simple constructions and likely used as a measure to increase population size and fishing opportunities. Since then, anthropogenic impacts and industrial development have fragmented river systems in most large rivers around the world (Nilsson et al. 2005). Accordingly, artificial fishways have been built, including a variety of designs, from minor rip-rap and blasting works to comprehensive combinations of concrete towers and rock tunnels, the tallest nearly 50 meters high. Unfortunately, extensive research over the last decades suggests that many fishways do not have the desired function (Noonan et al. 2011), and that multidisciplinary and site-specific knowledge is required to reach the best solutions (Williams et al. 2011).

=Upstream fish migration measures=
The various measures to mitigate issues concerning Upstream fish migration are listed below.

<gallery widths=200px heights=200px>
Weir removal mandal square small.png|[[Complete or partial migration barrier removal]]
Nature_like_fishway_gunz_square.jpg|[[Nature-like fishways]]
Pool_type_fishway_norway_square.png|[[Pool-type fishways]]
denil_fishway_square.png|[[Baffle fishways]]
eel_pass_france_square.png|[[Fishways for eels and lampreys]]
archimedes_screw_belgium_square.png|[[Fish lifts, screws and locks]]
truck_Transport_square.jpg|[[Truck transport]]
mechanical_fish_counter_gaula_square.png|[[Monitoring facilities]]
</gallery>

=Relevant literature=
*Noonan, M. J., Grant, J. W. A. and Jackson, C. D. 2011. A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency. Fish and Fisheries 13 (4): 450-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x
*Williams, J. G., Armstrong, G., Katopodis, C., Larinier, M. and Travade, F. 2011. Thinking like a fish: A key ingredient for development of effective fish passage facilities at river obstructions. River Research and Applications 28:407-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1551

[[Category: Types of problems]]

Complete or partial migration barrier removal

2020-06-01T17:24:22Z

Laurent: /* Relevant Literature */

[[file:icon_upstream.png|right|150px|link=[[Upstream fish migration]]]]
=Introduction=
[[file:barrier_removal_norway.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Removal of concrete weir in Norway by use of explosives and excavator.]]

If connectivity is to be restored, it should initially be considered whether the migration barrier can be removed. It is often the best and most long-term solution if the goal is to recreate connectivity. Here, the solution focuses on rivers regulated for hydropower production where dams will basically be maintained, but also in other regulated rivers there are possibilities for removing obstacles. Only in the Alpine region of Europe, a large number of dams have been built for river bed stabilization, and many of these have been replaced by block ramps, complete or partial removed. In addition, smaller weirs have been removed in residual flow reaches or minimum flow reaches with great success (Fjeldstad et al. 2012).

=[[Methods, tools, and devices]]=

==During planning==
Planning of fish barrier removal will start with mapping and surveying of the barrier itself and the river reach upstream and downstream of the barrier. This includes measurements of water covered area, water edges and river slope and the bathymetry of the area. Geographic data should be handled in GIS software for further planning and analyses. The construction planning should be supported with simple hydraulic modelling or calculations, such as the models River2D, HEC-RAS 2D, OpenFoam or Telemac 2D and 3D. The physical adjustments should then be planned according to the hydraulic calculations, assuring a stable bottom substrate and hydraulic conditions suitable for fish migrations.

==During implementation==
Physical implementation of migration barrier removals requires heavy machinery suited for the river size and its surrounding terrain, such as excavators and lorries. It must be considered how the different parts of the barrier, such as rocks and boulders, can be used as elements in the new habitat. Under normal conditions, none or only small volumes of substrate need to be transported to or from the construction site. Here, it is crucial that the labor involved has the relevant experience to make the best decisions while adjusting the physical habitat and that they have the required understanding of the planning documents and purpose of the measures

==During operation==
Physical habitat measures in regulated rivers must often be maintained to ensure that functions related to flow and sediments are restored, such as flood events and connectivity of the sediments. The frequency of the maintenance will be very site-specific.

=Relevant MTDs and test cases=
{{Suitable MTDs for Complete or partial migration barrier removal}}

=Classification table=
{{Complete or partial migration barrier removal}}

=Relevant Literature=
*Fjeldstad, H-P, Barlaup, B.T., Stickler, M, Gabrielsen, S.-E. and Alfredsen, K. 2012. Removal of weirs and the influence on physical habitat for salmonids in a Norwegian river. River Research and Applications; 28, pp. 753-763, https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1529
[[category:Upstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)

2020-06-01T17:10:06Z

Laurent: /* Quick summary */

=Quick summary=
[[file:gps_boat_remote.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Differential GPS mounted on a remote-controlled boat for bathymetry and discharge measurements (Sweco).]]
[[file:gps_single_point.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: RTK-GPS for single point measurements at very high accuracy (< 1 cm) (Sweco).]]

Developed by: USA, EU, China, Russia

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Methods]]

Suitable for the following [[:Category:Devices|Devices]]: [[Lidar]], [[Particle image velocimetry (PIV)]], [[Acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP)]],

=Introduction=
Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is a general term describing any satellite constellation that provides positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services on a global or regional basis.
While GPS is the most prevalent GNSS, other nations have provided their own systems to provide complementary, independent PNT capability. GPS is often used as a synonym for all of the different systems (Table 1).

<table style="height: 177px;" border="1" width="770">
<caption>Table 1: Different systems called as GPS.</caption>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
System
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
BeiDou
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Galileo
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
GLONASS
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
GPS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Owner
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
China
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
European Union
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Russia
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
United States
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Coverage
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Regional, global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Global
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Status
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Basic service by 2018, to be complete by H1 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operating since 2016, 2020 completion
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operational
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Operational
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Precision
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
10 (public) 0.1m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
1m (public) 0.01m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
4.5m - 7.4m
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
15m (no DGPS or WAAS)
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Application=
GNSS systems are used to georeferenced measurements. It is coupled with other systems, such as ADCP, Drones, devices for monitoring fish migration, and other devices where the exact location is nessary.

It is important to be aware of the accuracy of the GNSS data and if it fits the measurement. For bathymetry measurements it is recommended to have accuracy within a few cm, while discharge measurements can be done with accuracy at the submeter level.

There are mainly three different types of GNSS accuracy:
#Standard, such as in cell phones and car navigation. The accuracy lies within 3-5 m horizontally and 5-20 m vertically. These systems don’t receive any correction signal.
#Advanced receivers, usually referred to as “differential GPS”. These are used in most scientific instruments. The accuracy lies below 1 m horizontally and 2 m vertically.
#RTK-GPS need an internet connection to receive a correction signal. This usually is a real time signal (RTK = Real Time Kinematic), but it is also possible to get the correction for post processing.

=Other information=
General accuracy is depending on
*Number of satellites / selective availability
*Angle between the satellites = Dilution of Precision (DOP)
*Reflection from buildings/obstacles = multipath error
*Atmospheric conditions
Only the last point, the atmospheric conditions, can be corrected with the differential and RTK GPS.

=Relevant literature=
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation
*https://eos-gnss.com/elevation-for-beginners
*https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1828
*https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]][[Category:Needs improvement]]

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)

2020-06-01T17:06:29Z

Laurent: /* Quick summary */

=Quick summary=
[[file:gps_boat_remote.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Differential GPS mounted on a remote-controlled boat for bathymetry and discharge measurements (Sweco).]]
[[file:gps_single_point.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: RTK-GPS for single point measurements at very high accuracy (< 1 cm) (Sweco).]]

Developed by: USA, EU, China, Russia

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

Suitable for the following [[:Category:Devices|Devices]]: [[Lidar]], [[Particle image velocimetry (PIV)]], [[Acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP)]], [[]]

=Introduction=
Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is a general term describing any satellite constellation that provides positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services on a global or regional basis.
While GPS is the most prevalent GNSS, other nations have provided their own systems to provide complementary, independent PNT capability. GPS is often used as a synonym for all of the different systems (Table 1).

<table style="height: 177px;" border="1" width="770">
<caption>Table 1: Different systems called as GPS.</caption>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
System
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
BeiDou
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Galileo
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
GLONASS
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
GPS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Owner
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
China
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
European Union
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Russia
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
United States
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Coverage
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Regional, global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Global
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Status
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Basic service by 2018, to be complete by H1 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operating since 2016, 2020 completion
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operational
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Operational
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Precision
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
10 (public) 0.1m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
1m (public) 0.01m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
4.5m - 7.4m
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
15m (no DGPS or WAAS)
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Application=
GNSS systems are used to georeferenced measurements. It is coupled with other systems, such as ADCP, Drones, devices for monitoring fish migration, and other devices where the exact location is nessary.

It is important to be aware of the accuracy of the GNSS data and if it fits the measurement. For bathymetry measurements it is recommended to have accuracy within a few cm, while discharge measurements can be done with accuracy at the submeter level.

There are mainly three different types of GNSS accuracy:
#Standard, such as in cell phones and car navigation. The accuracy lies within 3-5 m horizontally and 5-20 m vertically. These systems don’t receive any correction signal.
#Advanced receivers, usually referred to as “differential GPS”. These are used in most scientific instruments. The accuracy lies below 1 m horizontally and 2 m vertically.
#RTK-GPS need an internet connection to receive a correction signal. This usually is a real time signal (RTK = Real Time Kinematic), but it is also possible to get the correction for post processing.

=Other information=
General accuracy is depending on
*Number of satellites / selective availability
*Angle between the satellites = Dilution of Precision (DOP)
*Reflection from buildings/obstacles = multipath error
*Atmospheric conditions
Only the last point, the atmospheric conditions, can be corrected with the differential and RTK GPS.

=Relevant literature=
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation
*https://eos-gnss.com/elevation-for-beginners
*https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1828
*https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]][[Category:Needs improvement]]

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)

2020-06-01T16:56:18Z

Laurent: /* Application */

=Quick summary=
[[file:gps_boat_remote.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Differential GPS mounted on a remote-controlled boat for bathymetry and discharge measurements (Sweco).]]
[[file:gps_single_point.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: RTK-GPS for single point measurements at very high accuracy (< 1 cm) (Sweco).]]

Developed by: USA, EU, China, Russia

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

Suitable for the following [[:Category:Measures|measures]]:

=Introduction=
Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is a general term describing any satellite constellation that provides positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services on a global or regional basis.
While GPS is the most prevalent GNSS, other nations have provided their own systems to provide complementary, independent PNT capability. GPS is often used as a synonym for all of the different systems (Table 1).

<table style="height: 177px;" border="1" width="770">
<caption>Table 1: Different systems called as GPS.</caption>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
System
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
BeiDou
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Galileo
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
GLONASS
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
GPS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Owner
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
China
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
European Union
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Russia
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
United States
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Coverage
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Regional, global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Global
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Status
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Basic service by 2018, to be complete by H1 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operating since 2016, 2020 completion
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operational
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Operational
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Precision
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
10 (public) 0.1m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
1m (public) 0.01m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
4.5m - 7.4m
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
15m (no DGPS or WAAS)
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Application=
GNSS systems are used to georeferenced measurements. It is coupled with other systems, such as ADCP, Drones, devices for monitoring fish migration, and other devices where the exact location is nessary.

It is important to be aware of the accuracy of the GNSS data and if it fits the measurement. For bathymetry measurements it is recommended to have accuracy within a few cm, while discharge measurements can be done with accuracy at the submeter level.

There are mainly three different types of GNSS accuracy:
#Standard, such as in cell phones and car navigation. The accuracy lies within 3-5 m horizontally and 5-20 m vertically. These systems don’t receive any correction signal.
#Advanced receivers, usually referred to as “differential GPS”. These are used in most scientific instruments. The accuracy lies below 1 m horizontally and 2 m vertically.
#RTK-GPS need an internet connection to receive a correction signal. This usually is a real time signal (RTK = Real Time Kinematic), but it is also possible to get the correction for post processing.

=Other information=
General accuracy is depending on
*Number of satellites / selective availability
*Angle between the satellites = Dilution of Precision (DOP)
*Reflection from buildings/obstacles = multipath error
*Atmospheric conditions
Only the last point, the atmospheric conditions, can be corrected with the differential and RTK GPS.

=Relevant literature=
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation
*https://eos-gnss.com/elevation-for-beginners
*https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1828
*https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]][[Category:Needs improvement]]

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)

2020-06-01T16:50:35Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:gps_boat_remote.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Differential GPS mounted on a remote-controlled boat for bathymetry and discharge measurements (Sweco).]]
[[file:gps_single_point.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: RTK-GPS for single point measurements at very high accuracy (< 1 cm) (Sweco).]]

Developed by: USA, EU, China, Russia

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

Suitable for the following [[:Category:Measures|measures]]:

=Introduction=
Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is a general term describing any satellite constellation that provides positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services on a global or regional basis.
While GPS is the most prevalent GNSS, other nations have provided their own systems to provide complementary, independent PNT capability. GPS is often used as a synonym for all of the different systems (Table 1).

<table style="height: 177px;" border="1" width="770">
<caption>Table 1: Different systems called as GPS.</caption>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
System
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
BeiDou
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Galileo
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
GLONASS
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
GPS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Owner
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
China
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
European Union
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Russia
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
United States
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Coverage
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Regional, global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Global
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Global
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Status
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
Basic service by 2018, to be complete by H1 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operating since 2016, 2020 completion
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Operational
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
Operational
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
Precision
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250px;">
10 (public) 0.1m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
1m (public) 0.01m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 120px;">
4.5m - 7.4m
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160px;">
15m (no DGPS or WAAS)
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Application=
GNSS systems are used to georeferenced measurements. It is usually used in connection with other systems, such as ADCP, Drones, devices for monitoring fish migration, and other devices where the exact location is important.

It is important to be aware of the accuracy of the GNSS data and if it fits the measurement. For bathymetry measurements it is recommended to have accuracy within a few cm, while discharge measurements can be done with accuracy at the submeter level.

There are mainly three different types of GNSS accuracy:
#Standard, such as in cell phones and car navigation. The accuracy lies within 3-5 m horizontally and 5-20 m vertically. These systems don’t receive any correction signal.
#Advanced receivers, usually referred to as “differential GPS”. These are used in most scientific instruments. The accuracy lies below 1 m horizontally and 2 m vertically.
#RTK-GPS need an internet connection to receive a correction signal. This usually is a real time signal (RTK = Real Time Kinematic), but it is also possible to get the correction for post processing.

=Other information=
General accuracy is depending on
*Number of satellites / selective availability
*Angle between the satellites = Dilution of Precision (DOP)
*Reflection from buildings/obstacles = multipath error
*Atmospheric conditions
Only the last point, the atmospheric conditions, can be corrected with the differential and RTK GPS.

=Relevant literature=
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation
*https://eos-gnss.com/elevation-for-beginners
*https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1828
*https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]][[Category:Needs improvement]]

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)

2020-06-01T16:45:33Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:gps_boat_remote.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Differential GPS mounted on a remote-controlled boat for bathymetry and discharge measurements (Sweco).]]
[[file:gps_single_point.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: RTK-GPS for single point measurements at very high accuracy (< 1 cm) (Sweco).]]

Developed by: USA, EU, China, Russia

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

Suitable for the following [[:Category:Measures|measures]]:

=Introduction=
Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is a general term describing any satellite constellation that provides positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services on a global or regional basis.
While GPS is the most prevalent GNSS, other nations have provided their own systems to provide complementary, independent PNT capability. GPS is often used as a synonym for all of the different systems (Table 1).

<table style="height: 177px;" border="1" width="810">
<caption>Table 1: Different systems called as GPS.</caption>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
System
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250.4px;">
BeiDou
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Galileo
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
GLONASS
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160.8px;">
GPS
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Owner
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250.4px;">
China
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
European Union
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Russia
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160.8px;">
United States
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Coverage
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250.4px;">
Regional, global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Global by 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Global
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160.8px;">
Global
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Status
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250.4px;">
Basic service by 2018, to be complete by H1 2020
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Operating since 2016, 2020 completion
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Operational
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160.8px;">
Operational
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
Precision
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 250.4px;">
10 (public) 0.1m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
1m (public) 0.01m (encrypted)
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 122.4px;">
4.5m - 7.4m
</td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 160.8px;">
15m (no DGPS or WAAS)
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Application=
GNSS systems are used to georeferenced measurements. It is usually used in connection with other systems, such as ADCP, Drones, devices for monitoring fish migration, and other devices where the exact location is important.

It is important to be aware of the accuracy of the GNSS data and if it fits the measurement. For bathymetry measurements it is recommended to have accuracy within a few cm, while discharge measurements can be done with accuracy at the submeter level.

There are mainly three different types of GNSS accuracy:
#Standard, such as in cell phones and car navigation. The accuracy lies within 3-5 m horizontally and 5-20 m vertically. These systems don’t receive any correction signal.
#Advanced receivers, usually referred to as “differential GPS”. These are used in most scientific instruments. The accuracy lies below 1 m horizontally and 2 m vertically.
#RTK-GPS need an internet connection to receive a correction signal. This usually is a real time signal (RTK = Real Time Kinematic), but it is also possible to get the correction for post processing.

=Other information=
General accuracy is depending on
*Number of satellites / selective availability
*Angle between the satellites = Dilution of Precision (DOP)
*Reflection from buildings/obstacles = multipath error
*Atmospheric conditions
Only the last point, the atmospheric conditions, can be corrected with the differential and RTK GPS.

=Relevant literature=
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation
*https://eos-gnss.com/elevation-for-beginners
*https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1828
*https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]][[Category:Needs improvement]]

Structure from motion (SfM)

2020-06-01T15:48:29Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:sfm_drone_picture.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Drone picture taken in a height of 50 m over ground showing the residual flow area in Anundsjø HPP, ice cover and the drone controller (NTNU).]]
[[file:sfm_evaluation.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: First run of a structure from motion evaluation in the lab of NTNU. The blue field indicates the camera position.]]
[[file:sfm_workflow.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Screenshot of the Argisoft Photoscan Workflow.]]
[[file:sf_mesh.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Mesh generated from SfM from a section of the residual flow reach of Anundsjø (NTNU).]]

Developed by: Various Companies

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Devices|Device]], [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
The technique of structure from motion was developed for the video-game industry to allow fast and easy 3D detection and evaluation of bodies. With this technique, it is possible, based on pictures of an object taken with a camera to combine these pictures. There are several approaches to generate a 3D model from SfM. In incremental SFM (Schönberger & Frahm 2016), camera poses are solved and added one by one. In global SFM (Govindu 2001), the poses of all cameras are solved for at the same time.

The best result can be achieved when taking pictures from every angle around the object. However, this is not possible for rivers, depending on the river bank vegetation only a flight directly above but with no relevant angle to the sides is possible (Figure 1).

The same problem might appear when using the technique in the lab (Figure 2).

For a sufficient accuracy of the results, at least a camera with a high quality GPS sensor needs to be used. The use of targets or even coded targets would be more favourable, however. Without a clear positioning of the pictures in the space, the result would not be correct as the cameras could not be located correctly in dependency to each other. Targets on the ground, especially for field measurements, are highly recommended. The position of the targets can be measured with a GPS and the targets can be redetected later in the pictures.

Depending on the software used this process of “re-finding” can be done automatically or needs to be done manually.

Again, there are different types of software available, commercial and non-commercial ones. As there is a very fast development and most non-commercial tools need a lot of experience with picture modifications etc. it is recommended, despite the costs, to use a commercial one such as Agisoft Photoscan for instance.
In this software, the user can follow relatively easy the workflow provided by the program (Figure 3) to produce a DEM.

=Application=
As for other picture-based evaluation methods, the data processing is the most demanding part of the measurement. When starting with the measurements in the field, it is highly recommended to use targets. The rough workflow is as follows:

*Putting targets on the ground with sufficient visibility. The quality of the results increases in case there are two to three targets visible in every picture. Hence the distribution of the targets depend on the flight height of the camera.
*The camera is usually mounted on a drone, however other constructions as a crane etc. are possible.
*Speed and height over ground depend on the area to be evaluated.
*In case large areas need to be covered an automated flight route programmed for the drone would be useful.
*Starting and landing the drone can be a crucial point, especially in the case this is done automatically and the connection is nut sufficient.
*Further problems can be caused by wind (for the flying performance) and by reflections (for the resulting pictures).

Once the measurements are done the evaluation is the most crucial point. Depending on the number of pictures evaluated the result quality de- or increases and in a reverse way the computer performance and power needed in- or decreases (Figure 4).

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
The highest cost is the software license in case a commercial product is used.

=Relevant literature=
*Alfredsen, K., Haas, C., Tuthan, J., Zinke, P., (2018). Brief Communication: Mapping river ice using drones and structure from motion.
*Bouhoubeiny, E., Germain, G., Druault, P., (2011). Time-Resolved PIV investigations of the flow field around cod-end net structures. Fisheries Research 108, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.010
*Buscombe, D., (2016a). Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Buscombe, D., (2016b). Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Cunliffe, A.M., Brazier, R.E., Anderson, K., (2016). Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 183, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019
*Flammang, B.E., Lauder, G.V., Troolin, D.R., Strand, T.E., (2011). Volumetric imaging of fish locomotion. Biol. Lett. 7, 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0282
*Govindu, V.M. (2001). Combining two-view constraints for motion estimation. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
*Koci, J., Jarihani, B., Leon, J.X., Sidle, R., Wilkinson, S., Bartley, R., (2017). Assessment of UAV and Ground-Based Structure from Motion with Multi-View Stereo Photogrammetry in a Gullied Savanna Catchment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6110328
*Kothnur, P.S., Tsurikov, M.S., Clemens, N.T., Donbar, J.M., Carter, C.D., (2002). Planar imaging of CH, OH, and velocity in turbulent non-premixed jet flames. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29, 1921–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-7489(02)80233-4
*Langhammer, J., Lendzioch, T., Miřijovský, J., Hartvich, F., (2017). UAV-Based Optical Granulometry as Tool for Detecting Changes in Structure of Flood Depositions. Remote Sensing 9, 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9030240
*Li, S., Cheng, W., Wang, M., Chen, C., (2011). The flow patterns of bubble plume in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 23, 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60143-6
*Lükő, G., Baranya, S., Rüther, D.N., (2017). UAV Based Hydromorphological Mapping of a River Reach to Improve Hydrodynamic Numerical Models.19th EGU General Assembly, EGU2017, proceedings from the conference held 23-28 April, 2017 in Vienna, Austria., p.13850
*Morgan, J.A., Brogan, D.J., Nelson, P.A., (2017). Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry in laboratory flumes. Geomorphology 276, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.021
*Paterson, D.M., Black, K.S., (1999). Water Flow, Sediment Dynamics and Benthic Biology, in: D.B. Nedwell and D.G. Raffaelli (Ed.), Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp. 155–193.
*Schönberger, J.L & Frahm, J.M. (2016). Structure-from-Motion Revisited. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
*Tytell, E.D., (2011). Buoyancy, locomotion and movement fishes | Experimental Hydrodynamics, in: Anthony P. Farrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 535–546.
*Vázquez-Tarrío, D., Borgniet, L., Liébault, F., Recking, A., (2017). Using UAS optical imagery and SfM photogrammetry to characterize the surface grain size of gravel bars in a braided river (Vénéon River, French Alps). Geomorphology 285, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.039
*Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., (2012). ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021

=Contact information=

[[Category:Devices]][[Category:Methods]]

Structure from motion (SfM)

2020-06-01T15:46:42Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:sfm_drone_picture.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Drone picture taken in a height of 50 m over ground showing the residual flow area in Anundsjø HPP, ice cover and the drone controller (NTNU).]]
[[file:sfm_evaluation.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: First run of a structure from motion evaluation in the lab of NTNU. The blue field indicates the camera position.]]
[[file:sfm_workflow.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Screenshot of the Argisoft Photoscan Workflow.]]
[[file:sf_mesh.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Mesh generated from SfM from a section of the residual flow reach of Anundsjø (NTNU).]]

Developed by: Various Companies

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Devices|Device]], [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
The technique of structure from motion was developed for the video-game industry to allow fast and easy 3D detection and evaluation of bodies. With this technique, it is possible, based on pictures of an object taken with a camera to combine these pictures. There are several approaches to generate a 3D model from SfM. In incremental SFM (Schönberger & Frahm 2016), camera poses are solved and added one by one. In global SFM (Govindu 2001), the poses of all cameras are solved for at the same time.

The best result can be achieved when taking pictures from every angle around the object. However, this is not possible for rivers, depending on the river bank vegetation only a flight directly above but with no relevant angle to the sides is possible (Figure 1).

The same problem might appear when using the technique in the lab (Figure 2).

For a sufficient accuracy of the results, at least a camera with a high quality GPS sensor needs to be used. The use of targets or even coded targets would be more favourable, however. Without a clear positioning of the pictures in the space, the result would not be correct as the cameras could not be located correctly in dependency to each other. Targets on the ground, especially for field measurements, are highly recommended. The position of the targets can be measured with a GPS and the targets can be redetected later in the pictures.

Depending on the software used this process of “re-finding” can be done automatically or needs to be done manually.

Again, there are different types of software available, commercial and non-commercial ones. As there is a very fast development and most non-commercial tools need a lot of experience with picture modifications etc. it is recommended, despite the costs, to use a commercial one such as Agisoft Photoscan for instance.
In this software, the user can follow relatively easy the workflow provided by the program (Figure 3) to produce a DEM.

=Application=
As for other picture-based evaluation methods, the data processing is the most demanding part of the measurement. When starting with the measurements in the field, it is highly recommended to use targets. The rough workflow is as follows:

*Putting targets on the ground with sufficient visibility. The quality of the results increases in case there are two to three targets visible in every picture. Hence the distribution of the targets depend on the flight height of the camera.
*The camera is usually mounted on a drone, however other constructions as a crane etc. are possible.
*Speed and height over ground depend on the area to be evaluated.
*In case large areas need to be covered an automated flight route programmed for the drone would be useful.
*Starting and landing the drone can be a crucial point, especially in the case this is done automatically and the connection is nut sufficient.
*Further problems can be caused by wind (for the flying performance) and by reflections (for the resulting pictures).

Once the measurements are done the evaluation is the most crucial point. Depending on the number of pictures evaluated the result quality de- or increases and in a reverse way the computer performance and power needed in- or decreases (Figure 4).

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
The highest cost is the software license in case a commercial product is used.

=Relevant literature=
*Alfredsen, K., Haas, C., Tuthan, J., Zinke, P., (2018). Brief Communication: Mapping river ice using drones and structure from motion.
*Bouhoubeiny, E., Germain, G., Druault, P., (2011). Time-Resolved PIV investigations of the flow field around cod-end net structures. Fisheries Research 108, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.010
*Buscombe, D., (2016a). Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Buscombe, D., (2016b). Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Cunliffe, A.M., Brazier, R.E., Anderson, K., (2016). Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 183, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019
*Flammang, B.E., Lauder, G.V., Troolin, D.R., Strand, T.E., (2011). Volumetric imaging of fish locomotion. Biol. Lett. 7, 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0282
*Govindu, V.M. (2001). Combining two-view constraints for motion estimation. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
*Koci, J., Jarihani, B., Leon, J.X., Sidle, R., Wilkinson, S., Bartley, R., (2017). Assessment of UAV and Ground-Based Structure from Motion with Multi-View Stereo Photogrammetry in a Gullied Savanna Catchment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6110328
*Kothnur, P.S., Tsurikov, M.S., Clemens, N.T., Donbar, J.M., Carter, C.D., (2002). Planar imaging of CH, OH, and velocity in turbulent non-premixed jet flames. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29, 1921–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-7489(02)80233-4
*Langhammer, J., Lendzioch, T., Miřijovský, J., Hartvich, F., (2017). UAV-Based Optical Granulometry as Tool for Detecting Changes in Structure of Flood Depositions. Remote Sensing 9, 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9030240
*LI, S., CHENG, W., WANG, M., CHEN, C., (2011). The flow patterns of bubble plume in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 23, 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60143-6
*Lükő, G., Baranya, S., Rüther, D.N., (2017). UAV Based Hydromorphological Mapping of a River Reach to Improve Hydrodynamic Numerical Models.19th EGU General Assembly, EGU2017, proceedings from the conference held 23-28 April, 2017 in Vienna, Austria., p.13850
*Morgan, J.A., Brogan, D.J., Nelson, P.A., (2017). Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry in laboratory flumes. Geomorphology 276, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.021
*Paterson, D.M., Black, K.S., (1999). Water Flow, Sediment Dynamics and Benthic Biology, in: D.B. Nedwell and D.G. Raffaelli (Ed.), Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp. 155–193.
*Schönberger, J.L & Frahm, J.M. (2016). "Structure-from-Motion Revisited" (PDF). IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
*Tytell, E.D., (2011). BUOYANCY, LOCOMOTION, AND MOVEMENT IN FISHES | Experimental Hydrodynamics, in: Anthony P. Farrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 535–546.
*Vázquez-Tarrío, D., Borgniet, L., Liébault, F., Recking, A., (2017). Using UAS optical imagery and SfM photogrammetry to characterize the surface grain size of gravel bars in a braided river (Vénéon River, French Alps). Geomorphology 285, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.039
*Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., (2012). ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021

=Contact information=

[[Category:Devices]][[Category:Methods]]

Structure from motion (SfM)

2020-06-01T15:39:43Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:sfm_drone_picture.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Drone picture taken in a height of 50 m over ground showing the residual flow area in Anundsjø HPP, ice cover and the drone controller (NTNU).]]
[[file:sfm_evaluation.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: First run of a structure from motion evaluation in the lab of NTNU. The blue field indicates the camera position.]]
[[file:sfm_workflow.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Screenshot of the Argisoft Photoscan Workflow.]]
[[file:sf_mesh.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Mesh generated from SfM from a section of the residual flow reach of Anundsjø (NTNU).]]

Developed by: Various Companies

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Devices|Device]], [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
The technique of structure from motion was developed for the video-game industry to allow fast and easy 3D detection and evaluation of bodies. With this technique, it is possible, based on pictures of an object taken with a camera to combine these pictures. There are several approaches to generate a 3D model from SfM. In incremental SFM (Schönberger & Frahm 2016), camera poses are solved and added one by one. In global SFM (Govindu 2001), the poses of all cameras are solved for at the same time.

The best result can be achieved when taking pictures from every angle around the object. However, this is not possible for rivers, depending on the river bank vegetation only a flight directly above but with no relevant angle to the sides is possible (Figure 1).

The same problem might appear when using the technique in the lab (Figure 2).

For a sufficient accuracy of the results, at least a camera with a high quality GPS sensor needs to be used. The use of targets or even coded targets would be more favourable, however. Without a clear positioning of the pictures in the space, the result would not be correct as the cameras could not be located correctly in dependency to each other. Targets on the ground, especially for field measurements, are highly recommended. The position of the targets can be measured with a GPS and the targets can be redetected later in the pictures.

Depending on the software used this process of “re-finding” can be done automatically or needs to be done manually.

Again, there are different types of software available, commercial and non-commercial ones. As there is a very fast development and most non-commercial tools need a lot of experience with picture modifications etc. it is recommended, despite the costs, to use a commercial one such as Agisoft Photoscan for instance.
In this software, the user can follow relatively easy the workflow provided by the program (Figure 3) to produce a DEM.

=Application=
As for other picture-based evaluation methods, the data processing is the most demanding part of the measurement. When starting with the measurements in the field, it is highly recommended to use targets. The rough workflow is as follows:

*Putting targets on the ground with sufficient visibility. The quality of the results increases in case there are two to three targets visible in every picture. Hence the distribution of the targets depend on the flight height of the camera.
*The camera is usually mounted on a drone, however other constructions as a crane etc. are possible.
*Speed and height over ground depend on the area to be evaluated.
*In case large areas need to be covered an automated flight route programmed for the drone would be useful.
*Starting and landing the drone can be a crucial point, especially in the case this is done automatically and the connection is nut sufficient.
*Further problems can be caused by wind (for the flying performance) and by reflections (for the resulting pictures).

Once the measurements are done the evaluation is the most crucial point. Depending on the number of pictures evaluated the result quality de- or increases and in a reverse way the computer performance and power needed in- or decreases (Figure 4).

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
The highest cost is the software license in case a commercial product is used.

=Relevant literature=
*Alfredsen, K., Haas, C., Tuthan, J., Zinke, P., 2018. Brief Communication: Mapping river ice using drones and structure from motion.
*Bouhoubeiny, E., Germain, G., Druault, P., 2011. Time-Resolved PIV investigations of the flow field around cod-end net structures. Fisheries Research 108, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.010
*Buscombe, D., 2016a. Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Buscombe, D., 2016b. Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Cunliffe, A.M., Brazier, R.E., Anderson, K., 2016. Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 183, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019
*Flammang, B.E., Lauder, G.V., Troolin, D.R., Strand, T.E., 2011. Volumetric imaging of fish locomotion. Biol. Lett. 7, 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0282
*Govindu, V.M. (2001). "Combining two-view constraints for motion estimation". IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
*Koci, J., Jarihani, B., Leon, J.X., Sidle, R., Wilkinson, S., Bartley, R., 2017. Assessment of UAV and Ground-Based Structure from Motion with Multi-View Stereo Photogrammetry in a Gullied Savanna Catchment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6110328
*Kothnur, P.S., Tsurikov, M.S., Clemens, N.T., Donbar, J.M., Carter, C.D., 2002. Planar imaging of CH, OH, and velocity in turbulent non-premixed jet flames. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29, 1921–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-7489(02)80233-4
*Langhammer, J., Lendzioch, T., Miřijovský, J., Hartvich, F., 2017. UAV-Based Optical Granulometry as Tool for Detecting Changes in Structure of Flood Depositions. Remote Sensing 9, 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9030240
*LI, S., CHENG, W., WANG, M., CHEN, C., 2011. The flow patterns of bubble plume in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 23, 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60143-6
*Lükő, G., Rüther, D.N., n.d. UAV BASED HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING OF A RIVER REACH TO IMPROVE HYDRODYNAMIC NUMERICAL MODELS 1.
*Lükő, G., Rüther, D.N., n.d. UAV Based Hydromorphological Mapping of a River Reach to Improve Hydrodynamic Numerical Models.
*Morgan et al. - 2017 - Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetr.pdf, n.d.
*Morgan, J.A., Brogan, D.J., Nelson, P.A., 2017. Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry in laboratory flumes. Geomorphology 276, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.021
*Paterson, D.M., Black, K.S., 1999. Water Flow, Sediment Dynamics and Benthic Biology, in: D.B. Nedwell and D.G. Raffaelli (Ed.), Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp. 155–193.
*Schönberger, J.L & Frahm, J.M. (2016). "Structure-from-Motion Revisited" (PDF). IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
*Tytell, E.D., 2011. BUOYANCY, LOCOMOTION, AND MOVEMENT IN FISHES | Experimental Hydrodynamics, in: Anthony P. Farrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 535–546.
*Vázquez-Tarrío, D., Borgniet, L., Liébault, F., Recking, A., 2017. Using UAS optical imagery and SfM photogrammetry to characterize the surface grain size of gravel bars in a braided river (Vénéon River, French Alps). Geomorphology 285, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.039
*Westoby et al. - 2012 - ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry A low-cost.pdf, n.d.
*Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., 2012. ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021

=Contact information=

[[Category:Devices]][[Category:Methods]]

Structure from motion (SfM)

2020-06-01T15:35:51Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:sfm_drone_picture.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Drone picture taken in a height of 50 m over ground showing the residual flow area in Anundsjø HPP, ice cover and the drone controller (NTNU).]]
[[file:sfm_evaluation.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: First run of a structure from motion evaluation in the lab of NTNU. The blue field indicates the camera position.]]
[[file:sfm_workflow.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Screenshot of the Argisoft Photoscan Workflow.]]
[[file:sf_mesh.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Mesh generated from SfM from a section of the residual flow reach of Anundsjø (NTNU).]]

Developed by: Various Companies

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Devices|Device]], [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
The technique of structure from motion was developed for the video-game industry to allow fast and easy 3D detection and evaluation of bodies. With this technique, it is possible, based on pictures of an object taken with a camera to combine these pictures and based on a software evaluation There are several approaches to generate a 3D model from SfM. In incremental SFM (Schönberger & Frahm 2016), camera poses are solved and added one by one. In global SFM (Govindu 2001), the poses of all cameras are solved for at the same time.

The best result can be achieved when taking pictures from every angle around the object. However, this is not possible for rivers, depending on the river bank vegetation only a flight directly above but with no relevant angle to the sides is possible (Figure 1).

The same problem might appear when using the technique in the lab (Figure 2).

For a sufficient accuracy of the results, at least a camera with a high quality GPS sensor needs to be used. The use of targets or even coded targets would be more favourable, however. Without a clear positioning of the pictures in the space, the result would not be correct as the cameras could not be located correctly in dependency to each other. Targets on the ground, especially for field measurements, are highly recommended. The position of the targets can be measured with a GPS and the targets can be redetected later in the pictures.

Depending on the software used this process of “re-finding” can be done automatically or needs to be done manually.

Again, there are different types of software available, commercial and non-commercial ones. As there is a very fast development and most non-commercial tools need a lot of experience with picture modifications etc. it is recommended, despite the costs, to use a commercial one such as Agisoft Photoscan for instance.
In this software, the user can follow relatively easy the workflow provided by the program (Figure 3) to produce a DEM.

=Application=
As for other picture-based evaluation methods, the data processing is the most demanding part of the measurement. When starting with the measurements in the field, it is highly recommended to use targets. The rough workflow is as follows:

*Putting targets on the ground with sufficient visibility. The quality of the results increases in case there are two to three targets visible in every picture. Hence the distribution of the targets depend on the flight height of the camera.
*The camera is usually mounted on a drone, however other constructions as a crane etc. are possible.
*Speed and height over ground depend on the area to be evaluated.
*In case large areas need to be covered an automated flight route programmed for the drone would be useful.
*Starting and landing the drone can be a crucial point, especially in the case this is done automatically and the connection is nut sufficient.
*Further problems can be caused by wind (for the flying performance) and by reflections (for the resulting pictures).

Once the measurements are done the evaluation is the most crucial point. Depending on the number of pictures evaluated the result quality de- or increases and in a reverse way the computer performance and power needed in- or decreases (Figure 4).

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
The highest cost is the software license in case a commercial product is used.

=Relevant literature=
*Alfredsen, K., Haas, C., Tuthan, J., Zinke, P., 2018. Brief Communication: Mapping river ice using drones and structure from motion.
*Bouhoubeiny, E., Germain, G., Druault, P., 2011. Time-Resolved PIV investigations of the flow field around cod-end net structures. Fisheries Research 108, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.010
*Buscombe, D., 2016a. Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Buscombe, D., 2016b. Spatially explicit spectral analysis of point clouds and geospatial data. Computers & Geosciences 86, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.004
*Cunliffe, A.M., Brazier, R.E., Anderson, K., 2016. Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 183, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019
*Flammang, B.E., Lauder, G.V., Troolin, D.R., Strand, T.E., 2011. Volumetric imaging of fish locomotion. Biol. Lett. 7, 695–698. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0282
*Govindu, V.M. (2001). "Combining two-view constraints for motion estimation". IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
*Koci, J., Jarihani, B., Leon, J.X., Sidle, R., Wilkinson, S., Bartley, R., 2017. Assessment of UAV and Ground-Based Structure from Motion with Multi-View Stereo Photogrammetry in a Gullied Savanna Catchment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6110328
*Kothnur, P.S., Tsurikov, M.S., Clemens, N.T., Donbar, J.M., Carter, C.D., 2002. Planar imaging of CH, OH, and velocity in turbulent non-premixed jet flames. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29, 1921–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-7489(02)80233-4
*Langhammer, J., Lendzioch, T., Miřijovský, J., Hartvich, F., 2017. UAV-Based Optical Granulometry as Tool for Detecting Changes in Structure of Flood Depositions. Remote Sensing 9, 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9030240
*LI, S., CHENG, W., WANG, M., CHEN, C., 2011. The flow patterns of bubble plume in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 23, 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60143-6
*Lükő, G., Rüther, D.N., n.d. UAV BASED HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING OF A RIVER REACH TO IMPROVE HYDRODYNAMIC NUMERICAL MODELS 1.
*Lükő, G., Rüther, D.N., n.d. UAV Based Hydromorphological Mapping of a River Reach to Improve Hydrodynamic Numerical Models.
*Morgan et al. - 2017 - Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetr.pdf, n.d.
*Morgan, J.A., Brogan, D.J., Nelson, P.A., 2017. Application of Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry in laboratory flumes. Geomorphology 276, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.021
*Paterson, D.M., Black, K.S., 1999. Water Flow, Sediment Dynamics and Benthic Biology, in: D.B. Nedwell and D.G. Raffaelli (Ed.), Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp. 155–193.
*Schönberger, J.L & Frahm, J.M. (2016). "Structure-from-Motion Revisited" (PDF). IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
*Tytell, E.D., 2011. BUOYANCY, LOCOMOTION, AND MOVEMENT IN FISHES | Experimental Hydrodynamics, in: Anthony P. Farrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 535–546.
*Vázquez-Tarrío, D., Borgniet, L., Liébault, F., Recking, A., 2017. Using UAS optical imagery and SfM photogrammetry to characterize the surface grain size of gravel bars in a braided river (Vénéon River, French Alps). Geomorphology 285, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.01.039
*Westoby et al. - 2012 - ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry A low-cost.pdf, n.d.
*Westoby, M.J., Brasington, J., Glasser, N.F., Hambrey, M.J., Reynolds, J.M., 2012. ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021

=Contact information=

[[Category:Devices]][[Category:Methods]]

Shelter measurements

2020-06-01T15:31:30Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:shelter_measurements_salmon.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Juvenile salmon in the upper layers of river bed sediment (Forseth et al., 2014).]]
[[file:shelter_measurements_shelter_tube.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Example showing hiding depth of 2cm (first marker covered) on a tube (Forseth et al., 2014).]]

Developed by: A. G. Finstad

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
The technique was developed by Finstad to estimate the shelter availability for juvenile salmon (Finstad et al. 2007a). In this stage of their life cycle, the salmon seeks shelter in the free spaces of the upper layers of the river bed sediment (Figure 1). The existence and size of such openings to be used as shelter is measured with the described technique. It is relatively easy to be carried out in the field. The method is based on the idea to mimic the small fish by using a plastic tube which has the approximate diameter of such a fish.

For salmon, Finstad used tubes with five different diameters (5, 10, 13, 16, 22 mm). As a result of their experiments Forseth et al. (2014) suggest the use of a 13mm tube to conduct the tests in an area of about 0.25m2. The tube is marked according to the three different shelter categories at lengths of 2, 5 and 10 cm to be able to detect certain possible hiding depths. Within the fixed framed area one is aiming to find every hole or opening where one can stick the tube into. The length of the tube (defined by the three rings) which is not visible any more, defines the potential hiding depth (Figure 2).

The post-processing of the data is quite simple and described in the following section.

In FIThydro, this technique is applied also to other fish species than the salmon. Therefore we use in addition tubes with diameters of 5 mm and 8 mm.
These results can then be linked to the D5 and D10 grain diameter of the sediment (Szabo-Meszaros et al 2016).

The method was developed in and for Norwegian rivers with large grain sizes. It is currently (also in FIThydro) under investigation if, when using it in rivers with a smaller D50, i.e. smaller grain sizes, this relation still applies or another relation becomes relevant.

=Application=
For the measurement the following material is needed:
*One tube with a diameter of 13 mm and marks (rings) at 2, 5 and 10 cm
*One frame (metal or wood) to define the size of the area to be counted on
*Something to take notes

The hiding depth thresholds are defined as 2, 5 and 10 cm and often named as class S1 (2 cm – 5 cm), class S2 (5 cm – 10 cm) and class S3 (> 10 cm).
It is recommended that the same person is carrying out the counting, to minimize the human based systematic error as much as possible.

When all values are collected in the field, the counted numbers for the different classes / hiding depth per spot are weighted using the following empirical formula described in Forseth et al (2014):

<math>S1+S2*2+S3*3</math>

Based on the following matrix the shelter availability can be defined:

<table border="1">
<caption> Table 1: shelter availability depending on the number of shelter spots available. </caption>
<tr style="height: 35px;">
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Shelter Class
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Low
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Moderate
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
High
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 35.2px;">
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Values for weighted shelter
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
< 5
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
5 – 10
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
> 10
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=

=Relevant literature=
*Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., 2007a. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52, 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x

*Finstad, A.G., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Naesje, T.F., 2007b. Metabolic rate, behaviour and winter performance in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Functional Ecology 21, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01291.x

*Forseth, T., Harby, A., Ugedal, O., Pulg, U., Fjeldstad, H.-P., Robertsen, G., Barlaup, B.T., Alfredsen, K., Sundt, H., Salveit, S.J., Skoglund, H., Kvingedal, E., Sundt-Hansen, L.E.B., Finstad, A., Einum, S., Arnekleiv, J.V., 2014. Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers (NINA temahefte No. 53). Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim, Norway.

*Szabo-Meszaros, Marcel, Rüther, N., Alfredsen, K., 2016. Correlation between the shelter of juvenile salmonids and bed substrate, in: Wieprecht, S., Haun, S., Weber, K., Noack, M., Terheiden, K. (Eds.), River Sedimentation: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation (Stuttgart, Germany, 19-22 September, 2016).

*Valdimarsson, S.K., Metcalfe, N.B., 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]]

Shelter measurements

2020-06-01T15:30:11Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:shelter_measurements_salmon.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Juvenile salmon in the upper layers of river bed sediment (Forseth et al., 2014).]]
[[file:shelter_measurements_shelter_tube.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Example showing hiding depth of 2cm (first marker covered) on a tube (Forseth et al., 2014).]]

Developed by: A. G. Finstad

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
The technique was developed by Finstad to estimate the shelter availability for juvenile salmon (Finstad et al. 2007a). In this stage of their life cycle, the salmon seeks shelter in the free spaces of the upper layers of the river bed sediment (Figure 1). The existence and size of such openings to be used as shelter is measured with the described technique. It is relatively easy to be carried out in the field. The method is based on the idea to mimic the small fish by using a plastic tube which has the approximate diameter of such a fish.

For salmon, Finstad used tubes with five different diameters (5, 10, 13, 16, 22 mm). As a result of their experiments Forseth et al. (2014) suggest the use of a 13mm tube to conduct the tests in an area of about 0.25m2. The tube is marked according to the three different shelter categories at lengths of 2, 5 and 10 cm to be able to detect certain possible hiding depths. Within the fixed framed area one is aiming to find every hole or opening where one can stick the tube into. The length of the tube (defined by the three rings) which is not visible any more, defines the potential hiding depth (Figure 2).

The post-processing of the data is quite simple and described in the following section.

In FIThydro this technique shall be applied also to other fish species than the salmon. Therefore we use in addition tubes with diameters of 5 mm and 8 mm.
These results can then be linked to the D5 and D10 grain diameter of the sediment (Szabo-Meszaros et al 2016).

The method was developed in and for Norwegian rivers with large grain sizes. It is currently (also in FIThydro) under investigation if, when using it in rivers with a smaller D50, i.e. smaller grain sizes, this relation still applies or another relation becomes relevant.

=Application=
For the measurement the following material is needed:
*One tube with a diameter of 13 mm and marks (rings) at 2, 5 and 10 cm
*One frame (metal or wood) to define the size of the area to be counted on
*Something to take notes

The hiding depth thresholds are defined as 2, 5 and 10 cm and often named as class S1 (2 cm – 5 cm), class S2 (5 cm – 10 cm) and class S3 (> 10 cm).
It is recommended that the same person is carrying out the counting, to minimize the human based systematic error as much as possible.

When all values are collected in the field, the counted numbers for the different classes / hiding depth per spot are weighted using the following empirical formula described in Forseth et al (2014):

<math>S1+S2*2+S3*3</math>

Based on the following matrix the shelter availability can be defined:

<table border="1">
<caption> Table 1: shelter availability depending on the number of shelter spots available. </caption>
<tr style="height: 35px;">
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Shelter Class
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Low
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Moderate
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
High
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 35.2px;">
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Values for weighted shelter
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
< 5
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
5 – 10
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
> 10
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=

=Relevant literature=
*Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., 2007a. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52, 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x

*Finstad, A.G., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Naesje, T.F., 2007b. Metabolic rate, behaviour and winter performance in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Functional Ecology 21, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01291.x

*Forseth, T., Harby, A., Ugedal, O., Pulg, U., Fjeldstad, H.-P., Robertsen, G., Barlaup, B.T., Alfredsen, K., Sundt, H., Salveit, S.J., Skoglund, H., Kvingedal, E., Sundt-Hansen, L.E.B., Finstad, A., Einum, S., Arnekleiv, J.V., 2014. Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers (NINA temahefte No. 53). Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim, Norway.

*Szabo-Meszaros, Marcel, Rüther, N., Alfredsen, K., 2016. Correlation between the shelter of juvenile salmonids and bed substrate, in: Wieprecht, S., Haun, S., Weber, K., Noack, M., Terheiden, K. (Eds.), River Sedimentation: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation (Stuttgart, Germany, 19-22 September, 2016).

*Valdimarsson, S.K., Metcalfe, N.B., 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]]

Shelter measurements

2020-06-01T15:27:35Z

Laurent: /* Quick summary */

=Quick summary=
[[file:shelter_measurements_salmon.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Juvenile salmon in the upper layers of river bed sediment (Forseth et al., 2014).]]
[[file:shelter_measurements_shelter_tube.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Example showing hiding depth of 2cm (first marker covered) on a tube (Forseth et al., 2014).]]

Developed by: A. G. Finstad

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
The technique was developed by Finstad to estimate the shelter availability for juvenile salmon (Finstad et al. 2007a). In this stage of their life cycle, the salmon seeks shelter in the free spaces of the upper layers of the river bed sediment (Figure 1). The existence and size of such openings to be used as shelter is measured with the described technique. It is relatively easy to be carried out in the field. The method is based on the idea to mimic the small fish by using a plastic tube which has the approximate diameter of such a fish.

For salmon Finstad used tubes with five different diameters (5, 10, 13, 16, 22 mm). As a result of their experiments Forseth et al. (2014) suggest the use of a 13mm tube to conduct the tests in an area of about 0.25m2. The tube is marked according to the three different shelter categories at lengths of 2, 5 and 10 cm to be able to detect certain possible hiding depths. Within the fixed framed area one is aiming to find every hole or opening where one can stick the tube into. The length of the tube (defined by the three rings) which is not visible any more, defines the potential hiding depth (Figure 2).

The post-processing of the data is quite simple and described in the following section.

In FIThydro this technique shall be applied also to other fish species than the salmon. Therefore we use in addition tubes with diameters of 5 mm and 8 mm.
These results can then be linked to the D5 and D10 grain diameter of the sediment (Szabo-Meszaros et al 2016).

The method was developed in and for Norwegian rivers with large grain sizes. It is currently (also in FIThydro) under investigation if, when using it in rivers with a smaller D50, i.e. smaller grain sizes, this relation still applies or another relation becomes relevant.

=Application=
For the measurement the following material is needed:
*One tube with a diameter of 13 mm and marks (rings) at 2, 5 and 10 cm
*One frame (metal or wood) to define the size of the area to be counted on
*Something to take notes

The hiding depth thresholds are defined as 2, 5 and 10 cm and often named as class S1 (2 cm – 5 cm), class S2 (5 cm – 10 cm) and class S3 (> 10 cm).
It is recommended that the same person is carrying out the counting, to minimize the human based systematic error as much as possible.

When all values are collected in the field, the counted numbers for the different classes / hiding depth per spot are weighted using the following empirical formula described in Forseth et al (2014):

<math>S1+S2*2+S3*3</math>

Based on the following matrix the shelter availability can be defined:

<table border="1">
<caption> Table 1: shelter availability depending on the number of shelter spots available. </caption>
<tr style="height: 35px;">
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Shelter Class
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Low
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Moderate
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
High
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 35.2px;">
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Values for weighted shelter
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
< 5
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
5 – 10
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
> 10
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=

=Relevant literature=
*Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., 2007a. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52, 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x

*Finstad, A.G., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Naesje, T.F., 2007b. Metabolic rate, behaviour and winter performance in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Functional Ecology 21, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01291.x

*Forseth, T., Harby, A., Ugedal, O., Pulg, U., Fjeldstad, H.-P., Robertsen, G., Barlaup, B.T., Alfredsen, K., Sundt, H., Salveit, S.J., Skoglund, H., Kvingedal, E., Sundt-Hansen, L.E.B., Finstad, A., Einum, S., Arnekleiv, J.V., 2014. Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers (NINA temahefte No. 53). Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim, Norway.

*Szabo-Meszaros, Marcel, Rüther, N., Alfredsen, K., 2016. Correlation between the shelter of juvenile salmonids and bed substrate, in: Wieprecht, S., Haun, S., Weber, K., Noack, M., Terheiden, K. (Eds.), River Sedimentation: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation (Stuttgart, Germany, 19-22 September, 2016).

*Valdimarsson, S.K., Metcalfe, N.B., 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]]

Shelter measurements

2020-06-01T15:26:41Z

Laurent: /* Quick summary */

=Quick summary=
[[file:shelter_measurements_salmon.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Juvenile salmon in the upper layers of river bed sediment .]]
[[file:shelter_measurements_shelter_tube.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Example showing hiding depth of 2cm (first marker covered) on a tube(Forseth et al., 2014).]]

Developed by: A. G. Finstad

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
The technique was developed by Finstad to estimate the shelter availability for juvenile salmon (Finstad et al. 2007a). In this stage of their life cycle, the salmon seeks shelter in the free spaces of the upper layers of the river bed sediment (Figure 1). The existence and size of such openings to be used as shelter is measured with the described technique. It is relatively easy to be carried out in the field. The method is based on the idea to mimic the small fish by using a plastic tube which has the approximate diameter of such a fish.

For salmon Finstad used tubes with five different diameters (5, 10, 13, 16, 22 mm). As a result of their experiments Forseth et al. (2014) suggest the use of a 13mm tube to conduct the tests in an area of about 0.25m2. The tube is marked according to the three different shelter categories at lengths of 2, 5 and 10 cm to be able to detect certain possible hiding depths. Within the fixed framed area one is aiming to find every hole or opening where one can stick the tube into. The length of the tube (defined by the three rings) which is not visible any more, defines the potential hiding depth (Figure 2).

The post-processing of the data is quite simple and described in the following section.

In FIThydro this technique shall be applied also to other fish species than the salmon. Therefore we use in addition tubes with diameters of 5 mm and 8 mm.
These results can then be linked to the D5 and D10 grain diameter of the sediment (Szabo-Meszaros et al 2016).

The method was developed in and for Norwegian rivers with large grain sizes. It is currently (also in FIThydro) under investigation if, when using it in rivers with a smaller D50, i.e. smaller grain sizes, this relation still applies or another relation becomes relevant.

=Application=
For the measurement the following material is needed:
*One tube with a diameter of 13 mm and marks (rings) at 2, 5 and 10 cm
*One frame (metal or wood) to define the size of the area to be counted on
*Something to take notes

The hiding depth thresholds are defined as 2, 5 and 10 cm and often named as class S1 (2 cm – 5 cm), class S2 (5 cm – 10 cm) and class S3 (> 10 cm).
It is recommended that the same person is carrying out the counting, to minimize the human based systematic error as much as possible.

When all values are collected in the field, the counted numbers for the different classes / hiding depth per spot are weighted using the following empirical formula described in Forseth et al (2014):

<math>S1+S2*2+S3*3</math>

Based on the following matrix the shelter availability can be defined:

<table border="1">
<caption> Table 1: shelter availability depending on the number of shelter spots available. </caption>
<tr style="height: 35px;">
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Shelter Class
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Low
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Moderate
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
High
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 35.2px;">
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Values for weighted shelter
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
< 5
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
5 – 10
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
> 10
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=

=Relevant literature=
*Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., 2007a. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52, 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x

*Finstad, A.G., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Naesje, T.F., 2007b. Metabolic rate, behaviour and winter performance in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Functional Ecology 21, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01291.x

*Forseth, T., Harby, A., Ugedal, O., Pulg, U., Fjeldstad, H.-P., Robertsen, G., Barlaup, B.T., Alfredsen, K., Sundt, H., Salveit, S.J., Skoglund, H., Kvingedal, E., Sundt-Hansen, L.E.B., Finstad, A., Einum, S., Arnekleiv, J.V., 2014. Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers (NINA temahefte No. 53). Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim, Norway.

*Szabo-Meszaros, Marcel, Rüther, N., Alfredsen, K., 2016. Correlation between the shelter of juvenile salmonids and bed substrate, in: Wieprecht, S., Haun, S., Weber, K., Noack, M., Terheiden, K. (Eds.), River Sedimentation: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation (Stuttgart, Germany, 19-22 September, 2016).

*Valdimarsson, S.K., Metcalfe, N.B., 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]]

Shelter measurements

2020-06-01T15:24:08Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:shelter_measurements_salmon.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Juvenile salmon in the upper layers of river bed sediment (Forseth et al., 2014).]]
[[file:shelter_measurements_shelter_tube.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Example showing hiding depth of 2cm (first marker covered) on a tube.]]

Developed by: A. G. FINSTAD

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
The technique was developed by Finstad to estimate the shelter availability for juvenile salmon (Finstad et al. 2007a). In this stage of their life cycle, the salmon seeks shelter in the free spaces of the upper layers of the river bed sediment (Figure 1). The existence and size of such openings to be used as shelter is measured with the described technique. It is relatively easy to be carried out in the field. The method is based on the idea to mimic the small fish by using a plastic tube which has the approximate diameter of such a fish.

For salmon Finstad used tubes with five different diameters (5, 10, 13, 16, 22 mm). As a result of their experiments Forseth et al. (2014) suggest the use of a 13mm tube to conduct the tests in an area of about 0.25m2. The tube is marked according to the three different shelter categories at lengths of 2, 5 and 10 cm to be able to detect certain possible hiding depths. Within the fixed framed area one is aiming to find every hole or opening where one can stick the tube into. The length of the tube (defined by the three rings) which is not visible any more, defines the potential hiding depth (Figure 2).

The post-processing of the data is quite simple and described in the following section.

In FIThydro this technique shall be applied also to other fish species than the salmon. Therefore we use in addition tubes with diameters of 5 mm and 8 mm.
These results can then be linked to the D5 and D10 grain diameter of the sediment (Szabo-Meszaros et al 2016).

The method was developed in and for Norwegian rivers with large grain sizes. It is currently (also in FIThydro) under investigation if, when using it in rivers with a smaller D50, i.e. smaller grain sizes, this relation still applies or another relation becomes relevant.

=Application=
For the measurement the following material is needed:
*One tube with a diameter of 13 mm and marks (rings) at 2, 5 and 10 cm
*One frame (metal or wood) to define the size of the area to be counted on
*Something to take notes

The hiding depth thresholds are defined as 2, 5 and 10 cm and often named as class S1 (2 cm – 5 cm), class S2 (5 cm – 10 cm) and class S3 (> 10 cm).
It is recommended that the same person is carrying out the counting, to minimize the human based systematic error as much as possible.

When all values are collected in the field, the counted numbers for the different classes / hiding depth per spot are weighted using the following empirical formula described in Forseth et al (2014):

<math>S1+S2*2+S3*3</math>

Based on the following matrix the shelter availability can be defined:

<table border="1">
<caption> Table 1: shelter availability depending on the number of shelter spots available. </caption>
<tr style="height: 35px;">
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Shelter Class
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Low
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
Moderate
</td>
<td style="height: 35px; text-align: center;" width="76">
High
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 35.2px;">
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="265">
Values for weighted shelter
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
< 5
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
5 – 10
</td>
<td style="height: 35.2px; text-align: center;" width="76">
> 10
</td>
</tr>
</table>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=

=Relevant literature=
*Finstad, A.G., Einum, S., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., 2007a. Shelter availability affects behaviour, size-dependent and mean growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Freshwater Biology 52, 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01799.x

*Finstad, A.G., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Naesje, T.F., 2007b. Metabolic rate, behaviour and winter performance in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Functional Ecology 21, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01291.x

*Forseth, T., Harby, A., Ugedal, O., Pulg, U., Fjeldstad, H.-P., Robertsen, G., Barlaup, B.T., Alfredsen, K., Sundt, H., Salveit, S.J., Skoglund, H., Kvingedal, E., Sundt-Hansen, L.E.B., Finstad, A., Einum, S., Arnekleiv, J.V., 2014. Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers (NINA temahefte No. 53). Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim, Norway.

*Szabo-Meszaros, Marcel, Rüther, N., Alfredsen, K., 2016. Correlation between the shelter of juvenile salmonids and bed substrate, in: Wieprecht, S., Haun, S., Weber, K., Noack, M., Terheiden, K. (Eds.), River Sedimentation: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on River Sedimentation (Stuttgart, Germany, 19-22 September, 2016).

*Valdimarsson, S.K., Metcalfe, N.B., 1998. Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology 52, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01551.x

=Contact information=

[[Category:Methods]]

Radio telemetry

2020-06-01T15:15:29Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:radio_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Two radio transmitters of different size (FCO)]]
[[file:radio_receiver.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Radio telemetry receiver (FCO).]]
[[file:fish_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) with a radio transmitter in the body cavity and the external antenna (FCO).]]

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
Radio telemetry is mainly used in freshwater (shallow streams and rivers) with a conductivity of < 500-1000 µSiemens/cm. A radio transmitter emits electromagnetic energy in the radio frequency range (between 30-300 MHz) and provides a possibility for remotely locating a fish. Digitally coded transmitters emit a unique code. A system can operate up to 1000 coded transmitters on one single frequency.

It is a gear intensive technique with the following components:
*Transmitter, emitting the signal, attached to the fish, with battery and an antenna (Figure 1)
*Mobile or fixed receiving antenna, capturing the radio signal, different types available; often loop or Yagi antenna are used.
*Receiver, converting the radio signal into an electronic/audible form in order to identify the tagged fish (Figure 2)
*Data logger, operates the receiver when the operator is absent
*Cables/connectors connect the antenna to the receiver
The transmitters should be adjusted to the size of fish and the study goal. The transmitter weight should not exceed 2 % of the fish weight. Different sensors can record temperature, depth, and pressure. Miniaturization made transmitters with 0.2 g possible. Therefore small fishes (12-15 cm total length) can be equipped with these tiny transmitters.

The transmitters are implanted into the body cavity of the fish (Figure 3). Gastric (oesophagus) insertion or external attachment may be possible. The conductivity of the water and the depth of the transmitter in the river are the most critical parameters in detecting the radio signals.

=Application=
Radio telemetry is a standard tool for the study of spatial ecology and migration of fishes. It can be applied for a variety of fish migration studies. The passage corridor at a hydropower plant can be evaluated and information is gathered how the fish is approaching the site. The searching phase in front of a hydropower plant can be documented for downstream and upstream migrations.

Stationary and mobile tracking are often used. Stationary tracking continuously tracks a signal, but its application is limited to specific sites. Fish presence or absence at a site, and passage and movement rates between sites can be detected (Eiler, 2012). Mobile tracking allows the survey of an extended area.

The application for radio telemetry at hydropower plants is mainly detecting passage routes and linear migrations in a river system. However, [[acoustic telemetry ]] became very popular and is more suitable for studies with the goal of documenting the detailed behaviour patterns of fishes in front of a hydropower plant (forebay). There are certain advantages and disadvantages for acoustic and radio telemetry. Both methods are adequate depending on the study objectives.

Radio telemetry is applied worldwide. Beeman et al (2012) published a comprehensive study on the effects of hydroelectric dams on fish populations on the Columbia River and on the Snake River. The downstream migration of Chinook salmon and anadromous rainbow trout at different sites were extensively documented.

Radio telemetry studies will be applied within the FIThydro project in the Aare River (HP Bannwil) to study the migration corridor and the timing of the migration. Mainly cyprinid fish species will be tracked. The main question is if fish are using the spillway corridor or if they migrate with the main flow through the turbine intakes. On the whole, the downstream migration of cyprinid fish species at hydropower plants has been incompletely studied so far and the Bannwil Test Case should contribute to a better understanding of cyprinid fish migration.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
Radio telemetry is gear-intensive with high initial costs for the equipment, but also for transmitters, the preparation and station installation. Radio telemetry experiments have to be considered as animal experiments and special permissions from the local authorities are needed.

=Relevant literature=
*Beeman, J. W., E. E. Hockersmith & J. R. Stevenson. (2012). Design and performance of radio telemetry systems for assessing juvenile fish passage at three hydroelectric dams. Pages 281-302 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

*Eiler, J. H. (2012). Tracking aquatic animals with radio telemetry. Pages 163-204 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

[[Category:Methods]]

Radio telemetry

2020-06-01T15:14:19Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:radio_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Two radio transmitters of different size (FCO)]]
[[file:radio_receiver.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Radio telemetry receiver (FCO).]]
[[file:fish_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) with a radio transmitter in the body cavity and the external antenna (FCO).]]

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
Radio telemetry is mainly used in freshwater (shallow streams and rivers) with a conductivity of < 500-1000 µSiemens/cm. A radio transmitter emits electromagnetic energy in the radio frequency range (between 30-300 MHz) and provides a possibility for remotely locating a fish. Digitally coded transmitters emit a unique code. A system can operate up to 1000 coded transmitters on one single frequency.

It is a gear intensive technique with the following components:
*Transmitter, emitting the signal, attached to the fish, with battery and an antenna (Figure 1)
*Mobile or fixed receiving antenna, capturing the radio signal, different types available; often loop or Yagi antenna are used.
*Receiver, converting the radio signal into an electronic/audible form in order to identify the tagged fish (Figure 2)
*Data logger, operates the receiver when the operator is absent
*Cables/connectors connect the antenna to the receiver
The transmitters should be adjusted to the size of fish and the study goal. The transmitter weight should not exceed 2 % of the fish weight. Different sensors can record temperature, depth, and pressure. Miniaturization made transmitters with 0.2 g possible. Therefore small fishes (12-15 cm total length) can be equipped with these tiny transmitters.

The transmitters are implanted into the body cavity of the fish (Figure 3). Gastric (oesophagus) insertion or external attachment may be possible. The conductivity of the water and the depth of the transmitter in the river are the most critical parameters in detecting the radio signals.

=Application=
Radio telemetry is a standard tool for the study of spatial ecology and migration of fishes. It can be applied for a variety of fish migration studies. The passage corridor at a hydropower plant can be evaluated and information is gathered how the fish is approaching the site. The searching phase in front of a hydropower plant can be documented for downstream and upstream migrations.

Stationary and mobile tracking are often used. Stationary tracking continuously tracks a signal, but its application is limited to specific sites. Fish presence or absence at a site, and passage and movement rates between sites can be detected (Eiler, 2012). Mobile tracking allows the survey of an extended area.

The application for radio telemetry at hydropower plants is mainly detecting passage routes and linear migrations in a river system. However, [[acoustic telemetry ]] became very popular and is more suitable for studies with the goal of documenting the detailed behaviour patterns of fishes in front of a hydropower plant (forebay). There are certain advantages and disadvantages for acoustic and radio telemetry. Both methods are adequate depending on the study objectives.

Radio telemetry is applied worldwide. Beeman et al (2012) published a comprehensive study on the effects of hydroelectric dams on fish populations on the Columbia River and on the Snake River. The downstream migration of Chinook salmon and anadromous rainbow trout at different sites were extensively documented.

Radio telemetry studies will be applied within the FIThydro project in the Aare River (HP Bannwil) to study the migration corridor and the timing of the migration. Mainly cyprinid fish species will be tracked. The main question is if fish are using the spillway corridor or if they migrate with the main flow through the turbine intakes. On the whole, the downstream migration of cyprinid fish species at hydropower plants has been incompletely studied so far and the Bannwil Test Case should contribute to a better understanding of cyprinid fish migration.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
Radio telemetry is gear-intensive with high initial costs for the equipment, but also for transmitters, the preparation and station installation. Radio telemetry experiments have to be considered as animal experiments and special permissions from the local authorities are needed.

=Relevant literature=
*Beeman, J. W., E. E. Hockersmith & J. R. Stevenson. 2012. Design and performance of radio telemetry systems for assessing juvenile fish passage at three hydroelectric dams. Pages 281-302 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

*Eiler, J. H. 2012. Tracking aquatic animals with radio telemetry. Pages 163-204 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

[[Category:Methods]]

Radio telemetry

2020-06-01T15:13:16Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:radio_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Two radio transmitters of different size (FCO)]]
[[file:radio_receiver.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Radio telemetry receiver (FCO).]]
[[file:fish_transmitter.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) with a radio transmitter in the body cavity and the external antenna (FCO).]]

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
Radio telemetry is mainly used in freshwater (shallow streams and rivers) with a conductivity of < 500-1000 µSiemens/cm. A radio transmitter emits electromagnetic energy in the radio frequency range (between 30-300 MHz) and provides a possibility for remotely locating a fish. Digitally coded transmitters emit a unique code. A system can operate up to 1000 coded transmitters on one single frequency.

It is a gear intensive technique with the following components:
*Transmitter, emitting the signal, attached to the fish, with battery and an antenna (Figure 1)
*Mobile or fixed receiving antenna, capturing the radio signal, different types available; often loop or Yagi antenna are used.
*Receiver, converting the radio signal into an electronic/audible form in order to identify the tagged fish (Figure 2)
*Data logger, operates the receiver when the operator is absent
*Cables/connectors connect the antenna to the receiver
The transmitters should be adjusted to the size of fish and the study goal. The transmitter weight should not exceed 2 % of the fish weight. Different sensors can record temperature, depth, and pressure. Miniaturization made transmitters with 0.2 g possible. Therefore small fishes (12-15 cm total length) can be equipped with these tiny transmitters.

The transmitters are implanted into the body cavity of the fish (Figure 3). Gastric (oesophagus) insertion or external attachment may be possible. The conductivity of the water and the depth of the transmitter in the river are the most critical parameters in detecting the radio signals.

=Application=
Radio telemetry is a standard tool for the study of spatial ecology and migration of fishes. It can be applied for a variety of fish migration studies. The passage corridor at a hydropower plant can be evaluated and information is gathered how the fish is approaching the site. The searching phase in front of a hydropower plant can be documented for downstream and upstream migrations.

Stationary and mobile tracking are often used. Stationary tracking continuously tracks a signal, but its application is limited to specific sites. Fish presence or absence at a site, and passage and movement rates between sites can be detected (Eiler, 2012). Mobile tracking allows the survey of an extended area.

The application for radio telemetry at hydropower plants is mainly detecting passage routes and linear migrations in a river system. However, [[acoustic_telemetry ]] became very popular and is more suitable for studies with the goal of documenting the detailed behaviour patterns of fishes in front of a hydropower plant (forebay). There are certain advantages and disadvantages for acoustic and radio telemetry. Both methods are adequate depending on the study objectives.

Radio telemetry is applied worldwide. Beeman et al (2012) published a comprehensive study on the effects of hydroelectric dams on fish populations on the Columbia River and on the Snake River. The downstream migration of Chinook salmon and anadromous rainbow trout at different sites were extensively documented.

Radio telemetry studies will be applied within the FIThydro project in the Aare River (HP Bannwil) to study the migration corridor and the timing of the migration. Mainly cyprinid fish species will be tracked. The main question is if fish are using the spillway corridor or if they migrate with the main flow through the turbine intakes. On the whole, the downstream migration of cyprinid fish species at hydropower plants has been incompletely studied so far and the Bannwil Test Case should contribute to a better understanding of cyprinid fish migration.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for 3D fish tracking system}}

=Other information=
Radio telemetry is gear-intensive with high initial costs for the equipment, but also for transmitters, the preparation and station installation. Radio telemetry experiments have to be considered as animal experiments and special permissions from the local authorities are needed.

=Relevant literature=
*Beeman, J. W., E. E. Hockersmith & J. R. Stevenson. 2012. Design and performance of radio telemetry systems for assessing juvenile fish passage at three hydroelectric dams. Pages 281-302 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

*Eiler, J. H. 2012. Tracking aquatic animals with radio telemetry. Pages 163-204 in N. S. Adams, J. W. Beeman & J. H. Eiler. Editors. Telemetry techniques: a user guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

[[Category:Methods]]

Acoustic telemetry

2020-06-01T15:04:37Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:telemetry_iller.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: VPS array in the river Iller (Germany) covering a fish pass outflow downstream of a hydropower plant (Vemco 180 kHz system). Blue marks are hydrophones containing synchronisation tags and yellow marks are reference tags (INBO).]]
[[file:telemetry_albert.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2: example of a silver eel track at the Albert Canal (Belgium) using VPS at 69 kHz (INBO).]]
[[file:hydrophone_belgium.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Belgian hydrophone network (2018) consisting of 164 hydrophones (INBO).]]
[[file:hydrophone_europe.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 4: European ETN hydrophone network with 136 different programs, 2948 tagged fish and 55 million detections (source: http://www.lifewatch.be/etn/)]]
Developed by:

Date:

Type: [[:Category:Methods|Method]]

=Introduction=
Together with radio and PIT telemetry, acoustic telemetry is a biotelemetry technique that has been used on fish for over 60 years. The principle of acoustic telemetry consists of the communication between an emitting tag (fish) and a receiving device (hydrophone) by means of an acoustic signal to determine the location of the tag (fish). This location can provide useful information about migration, individual behaviour, habitat use, passage efficiency, predation, etc. Acoustic telemetry uses lower radio frequency signals (69-500 kHz) compared to radio telemetry (30-300 MHz), which both have advantages and disadvantages. A major drawback of acoustic compared to radio telemetry used to be the poor reading range in turbulent water systems. Recent developments countered this drawback by using higher frequency signals. Nowadays, also more challenging environments like noisy, shallow and reflective water systems are suitable for acoustic telemetry. This evolution also allows positioning many tagged animals with sub-meter accuracy at the same time. Another unique advantage of acoustic telemetry is its capability to be used in salt and deep water. These features make this technique suitable to conduct fish behaviour studies that are able to address multiple research questions, even for diadromous fish species. Besides a single registration of a fish (1D or presence/ absence), more and more research is done to gather fish tracks in 2D or even 3D at specific sites like migration obstacles, fish passes and hydropower stations (Figure 3). The principle of this precise positioning of fish is based on the difference in detection time of a tag that is positioned in between at least 3 receiving hydrophones. Depending on the producer of the tags and hydrophones, the acoustics work at different kHz ranges. When the producer is VEMCO, then the 2D/3D positioning system is called VPS and this works at either 69 kHz or 180 kHz. Initially, this VPS (Vemco Positioning System) was mainly used in big lakes using 69 kHz tags, but recently small-scale accurate fish tracking is possible using a higher 180 kHz frequency. The choice for one or the other frequency depends on the system studied and the study objectives. Typically, the VPS array is equipped with reference and synchronisation tags to monitor system performance and to correct for clock drift between different submerged hydrophones. Figure 1 and 2 show a VPS array conducted at the Fithydro case study of the river Iller (Altusried, Germany) and another one in the Albert Canal (Ham, Belgium).

=Application=
The most comprehensive use of acoustic fish telemetry has been done on the large scale 1D migration research. In this setup hydrophones are spread along a lake, a river or a canal and fish are detected when passing these hydrophones. Numerous examples of fish migration studies in large rivers and lakes around the world have been published so far. The advantages of this research technique are found in its good performance in deep and salt water and its large detection range in such situations. Many of these migration studies were conducted on diadromous fish species like eel and salmonids. The typical study design consists of 69 kHz hydrophones and tags with a diameter between 7 and 13 mm. The hydrophones can be moored close to the river banks if the detection range of the tags covers the whole width of the river. In lake or estuary systems, hydrophones can be attached to buoys. This range depends on the tag output power (136-162 dB) and the environmental conditions (noise). Tags are custom-made and programmed to fit the research demands. The determining factors for the setup of a 1D acoustic system are the fish species of interest, its environment and the specific research questions. When studying smaller species or juvenile fish, tag size will limit the battery life. Big rivers with strong currents will require more hydrophones and/or tags with a higher output (so a shorter battery life). When spatial and temporal changes of a certain migration are expected, tags could be programmed in different steps in which the duration, the power output and the signal delay can be changed. During or after the study period, hydrophones have to be lifted for data download by means of Bluetooth connection to a PC. Hydrophones at 69 kHz can operate for more than one year before the battery has to be changed. A single hydrophone can store 1.6 million detections. These unique detections are the result of a so called ‘PPM’ signal (Pulse Position Modulation), which is a ping train of 8 consecutive pings. The separation between each of these individual pings results in a unique ID. The recently developed tags and hydrophones that work on 180 kHz can emit and detect HR (High Residency) coded signals beside PPM coded signals. An HR coded signal is emitted as one ping and does not exist of consecutive ping trains. Hence, the emission time of the code is reduced much and one signal is emitted in less than one second. Consequently, the chance of collision of codes of multiple tagged fish that are within the same detection zone of a hydrophone is reduced. Next, the delay between two consecutive code emissions can be reduced as well, down to one second, allowing more frequent fish positioning (more fish positions per time unit). High frequency tags are smaller compared to the 69 kHz tags (smallest tag diameter is 4 mm). A network of receivers can be used to conduct research on several species at a large scale (Figure 3 and 4).

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Acoustic telemetry}}

=Other information=
Acoustic fish telemetry suppliers worldwide:
*ATS, 470 First Avenue NW, Isanti, MN 55040, USA
*HTI, 715 NE Northlake Way, Seattle, WA 98105: recent partnership with Vemco
*Lotek Wireless Inc., 115 Pony Drive, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada L3Y 7B5
*Thelma Biotel, Sluppenveien 10, 7037 Trondheim, Norway, EU
*Sonotronics, 3169 S Chrysler Ave, Tucson, AZ 85713, USA
*Vemco, 20 Angus Morton Drive, Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada B4B 0L9
Hydrophones can differ regarding the frequency used, the ability to measure other variables (tilt, temperature, …), whether it is cabled or not, etc. The price for one submersible hydrophone ranges from 1.000 to over 3.000 € (without VAT). Tags are available in an endless number of different settings and sizes. The price range of acoustic tags is between 180 and 500 €. A lot of other gear like portable hydrophones, automatic acoustic release systems, remote communication, etc. are available these days.

=Relevant literature=
Some examples of 1D acoustic studies using different suppliers of acoustic gear:

*Bass, A. L., T. O. Haugen, & L. A. Vøllestad, 2014. Distribution and movement of European grayling in a subarctic lake revealed by acoustic telemetry. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 23: 149–160.

*Behrmann-Godel, J., & Eckmann, R., 2003. A preliminary telemetry study of the migration of silver European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) in the River Mosel, Germany. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12: 196–202.

*Besson, M., T. Trancart, A. Acou, F. Charrier, V. Mazel, A. Legault, & E. Feunteun, 2016. Disrupted downstream migration behaviour of European silver eels (Anguilla anguilla, L.) in an obstructed river. Environmental Biology of Fishes .

*Breine, J., I. S. Pauwels, P. Verhelst, L. Vandamme, R. Baeyens, J. Reubens, & J. Coeck, 2017. Successful external acoustic tagging of twaite shad Alosa fallax (Lacépède 1803). Fisheries Research 191: 36–40.

*Bultel, E., Lasne, E., Acou, A., Guillaudeau, J., Bertier, C., & Feunteun, E. (2014). Migration behaviour of silver eels (Anguilla anguilla) in a large estuary of Western Europe inferred from acoustic telemetry. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 137(0), 23-31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.11.023

*Hayden TA, Holbrook CM, Fielder DG, Vandergoot CS, Bergstedt RA, Dettmers JM, et al. (2014) Acoustic Telemetry Reveals Large-Scale Migration Patterns of Walleye in Lake Huron. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114833

More than 1000 research papers on Vemco acoustic telemetry research can be consulted via https://vemco.com/publications-database/.

Hundreds of papers that used Lotek gear can be found here: http://www.lotek.com/search

Examples of 2D and 3D research outputs:
*Andrews, K. S., N. Tolimieri, G. D. Williams, J. F. Samhouri, C. J. Harvey, & P. S. Levin, 2011. Comparison of fine-scale acoustic monitoring systems using home range size of a demersal fish. Marine Biology 158: 2377–2387.

*Espinoza, M., T. Farrugia, D. Webber, F. Smith, & C. Lowe, 2011. Testing a new acoustic technique to quantify fine-scale, long-term fish movements. Fisheries Research 108: 364-371.

*Fowler, A. J., C. Huveneers, & M. T. Lloyd, 2017. Insights into movement behaviour of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus, Sparidae) from a large acoustic array. Marine and Freshwater Research 68: 1438–1453.

*Roy, R., L. Westrelin, E. Tissot, E. De Oliveira, & C. Argillier, 2014. Activity patterns of three piscivorous species in a reservoir studied with the Vemco Positioning System. 144ème réunion annuelle de l’American Fisheries Society 18 p.

*Vergeynst, J., R. Baeyens, I. Pauwels, T. De Mulder, I. Nopens, & A. Mouton, 2016. The behaviour of downstream migrating European eel at sluices and turbines. http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/pug01:8075115.

*Williams-Grove, L. J., & S. T. Szedlmayer, 2017. Depth preferences and three-dimensional movements of red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, on an artificial reef in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries Research 190: 61–70.

[[Category:Methods]]

TELEMAC

2020-06-01T14:52:36Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

NOTE: literature incorrect (different from rest) format in report. Needs to be fixed. [[file:broken]]
=Quick summary=
[[file:telemac2d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Telemac2D: Modeling of an embankment failure (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Telemac-3D: Three-dimensional velocity field (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac2dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Telemac2d+Sisyphe: Morphodynamic evolution in meandering bars (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Telemac-3d+Sisyphe:Three-dimensional flow pattern and bed deformation (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]

Developed by: Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement (LNHE), part of the R&D group of Électricité de France.

Date: 1991 (and later)

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
An international consortium of research institutes, agencies and companies manages the open source software TELEMAC (www.opentelemac.org). Originally developed in France, the software is now freely available and the FORTRAN-based source code is open for developers and users. The software is structured in modules, which can be coupled depending on the purpose. The most common module is Telemac-2D, which is a 2D depth averaged, shallow water based hydrodynamic solver for free surface flows. The more complex model,Telemac-3D, provides RANS averaged three dimensional information on the flow. Both modules can be coupled to Sisyphe, the morphological module, representing sediment transport. Figures 1-4 provide an overview of some selected modules. For completeness, the others are Artemis and Tomawac (for wave and coastal areas), Nestor (extension for Sisyphe), and the one-dimensional solver Mascaret.

=Application=
TELEMAC is well suited to model flow and hydro-morphological processes in rivers, by using either a classical, two-dimensional shallow-water approach or a fully 3D RANS based Navier-Stokes solver. The program has a large number of empirical bed-load and suspended load transport formulae implemented. Additionally, customized developments and extensions can be implemented as described below.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for TELEMAC}}

=Other information=
The availability of the source code makes TELEMAC suitable for developments, extensions and research purposes, beyond the existing framework. On the TELEMAC homepage information on user-specific developments can be found in a source code repository or in the proceedings of the user community events. For example, at TUM the following user-specific extensions have been developed or are currently under development:
*Development for sediment transport to improve the process description and the stability of the code.
*Integration of innovative, data-driven methods instead of classical, morphological simulation approaches.
*Further code optimization for one of the fastest High-Performance-Computer worldwide.
*Concept to provide the computational grid, to estimate relevant parameters and to perform an automated, iterative model calibration.

=Relevant literature=
*Galland, J.C.; Goutal, N., Hervouet, J.M. (1991), TELEMAC: A New Numerical Model for Solving Shallow Water Equations, Advances in Water Resources, 14 (3): 138-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(91)90006-A
*Goutal, N. and Maurel, F. (2002). A Finite Volume Solver for 1D Shallow-Water Equations Applied to an Actual River.Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids; 38:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.201
*Goutal, N., Lacombe, J.-M., Zaoui, F., El-Kadi-Abderrezzak, K. (2012). MASCARET: a 1-D Open-Source Software for Flow Hydrodynamic and Water Quality in Open Channel Networks. River Flow 2012 – Murillo (Ed.), pp. 1169-1174

=Contact information=

[[Category:Tools]]

TELEMAC

2020-06-01T14:48:45Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

NOTE: literature incorrect (different from rest) format in report. Needs to be fixed. [[file:broken]]
=Quick summary=
[[file:telemac2d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Telemac2D: Modeling of an embankment failure (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Telemac-3D: Three-dimensional velocity field (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac2dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Telemac2d+Sisyphe: Morphodynamic evolution in meandering bars (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Telemac-3d+Sisyphe:Three-dimensional flow pattern and bed deformation (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]

Developed by: Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement (LNHE), part of the R&D group of Électricité de France.

Date: 1991 (and later)

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
An international consortium of research institutes, agencies and companies manages the open source software TELEMAC (www.opentelemac.org). Originally developed in France, the software is now freely available and the FORTRAN-based source code is open for developers and users. The software is structured in modules, which can be coupled depending on the purpose. The most common module is Telemac-2D, which is a 2D depth averaged, shallow water based hydrodynamic solver for free surface flows. The more complex model,Telemac-3D, provides RANS averaged three dimensional information on the flow. Both modules can be coupled to Sisyphe, the morphological module, representing sediment transport. Figures 1-4 provide an overview of some selected modules. For completeness, the others are Artemis and Tomawac (for wave and coastal areas), Nestor (extension for Sisyphe), and the one-dimensional solver Mascaret.

=Application=
TELEMAC is well suited to model flow and hydro-morphological processes in rivers, by using either a classical, two-dimensional shallow-water approach or a fully 3D RANS based Navier-Stokes solver. The program has a large number of empirical bed-load and suspended load transport formulae implemented. Additionally, customized developments and extensions can be implemented as described below.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for TELEMAC}}

=Other information=
The availability of the source code makes TELEMAC suitable for developments, extensions and research purposes, beyond the existing framework. On the TELEMAC homepage information on user-specific developments can be found in a source code repository or in the proceedings of the user community events. For example, at TUM the following user-specific extensions have been developed or are currently under development:
*Development for sediment transport to improve the process description and the stability of the code.
*Integration of innovative, data-driven methods instead of classical, morphological simulation approaches.
*Further code optimization for one of the fastest High-Performance-Computer worldwide.
*Concept to provide the computational grid, to estimate relevant parameters and to perform an automated, iterative model calibration.

=Relevant literature=
*Galland, J.C.; Goutal, N., Hervouet, J.M. (1991), TELEMAC: A New Numerical Model for Solving Shallow Water Equations, Advances in Water Resources, 14 (3): 138-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(91)90006-A
*Goutal, N. and Maurel, F. (2002). A Finite Volume Solver for 1D Shallow-Water Equations Applied to an Actual River.Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids; 38:1-19
*Goutal, N., Lacombe, J.-M., Zaoui, F., El-Kadi-Abderrezzak, K. (2012). MASCARET: a 1-D Open-Source Software for Flow Hydrodynamic and Water Quality in Open Channel Networks. River Flow 2012 – Murillo (Ed.), pp. 1169-1174

=Contact information=

[[Category:Tools]]

TELEMAC

2020-06-01T14:47:46Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

NOTE: literature incorrect (different from rest) format in report. Needs to be fixed. [[file:broken]]
=Quick summary=
[[file:telemac2d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Telemac2D: Modeling of an embankment failure (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Telemac-3D: Three-dimensional velocity field (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac2dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Telemac2d+Sisyphe: Morphodynamic evolution in meandering bars (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Telemac-3d+Sisyphe:Three-dimensional flow pattern and bed deformation (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]

Developed by: Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement (LNHE), part of the R&D group of Électricité de France.

Date: 1991 (and later)

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
An international consortium of research institutes, agencies and companies manages the open source software TELEMAC (www.opentelemac.org). Originally developed in France, the software is now freely available and the FORTRAN-based source code is open for developers and users. The software is structured in modules, which can be coupled depending on the purpose. The most common module is Telemac-2D, which is a 2D depth averaged, shallow water based hydrodynamic solver for free surface flows. The more complex model,Telemac-3D, provides RANS averaged three dimensional information on the flow. Both modules can be coupled to Sisyphe, the morphological module, representing sediment transport. Figures 1-4 provide an overview of some selected modules. For completeness, the others are Artemis and Tomawac (for wave and coastal areas), Nestor (extension for Sisyphe), and the one-dimensional solver Mascaret.

=Application=
TELEMAC is well suited to model flow and hydro-morphological processes in rivers, by using either a classical, two-dimensional shallow-water approach or a fully 3D RANS based Navier-Stokes solver. The program has a large number of empirical bed-load and suspended load transport formulae implemented. Additionally, customized developments and extensions can be implemented as described below.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for TELEMAC}}

=Other information=
The availability of the source code makes TELEMAC suitable for developments, extensions and research purposes, beyond the existing framework. On the TELEMAC homepage information on user-specific developments can be found in a source code repository or in the proceedings of the user community events. For example, at TUM the following user-specific extensions have been developed or are currently under development:
*Development for sediment transport to improve the process description and the stability of the code.
*Integration of innovative, data-driven methods instead of classical, morphological simulation approaches.
*Further code optimization for one of the fastest High-Performance-Computer worldwide.
*Concept to provide the computational grid, to estimate relevant parameters and to perform an automated, iterative model calibration.

=Relevant literature=
*Galland,J.C.; Goutal, N., Hervouet, J.M. (1991), TELEMAC: A New Numerical Model for Solving Shallow Water Equations, Advances in Water Resources, 14 (3): 138-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(91)90006-A
*Goutal, N. and Maurel, F. (2002). A Finite Volume Solver for 1D Shallow-Water Equations Applied to an Actual River.Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids; 38:1-19
*Goutal, N., Lacombe,J.-M., Zaoui, F., El-Kadi-Abderrezzak, K. (2012). MASCARET: a 1-D Open-Source Software for Flow Hydrodynamic and Water Quality in Open Channel Networks. River Flow 2012 – Murillo (Ed.), pp. 1169-1174

=Contact information=

[[Category:Tools]]

TELEMAC

2020-06-01T14:42:37Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

NOTE: literature incorrect (different from rest) format in report. Needs to be fixed. [[file:broken]]
=Quick summary=
[[file:telemac2d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Telemac2D: Modeling of an embankment failure (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Telemac-3D: Three-dimensional velocity field (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac2dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Telemac2d+Sisyphe: Morphodynamic evolution in meandering bars (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Telemac-3d+Sisyphe:Three-dimensional flow pattern and bed deformation (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]

Developed by: Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement (LNHE), part of the R&D group of Électricité de France.

Date: 1991 (and later)

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
An international consortium of research institutes, agencies and companies manages the open source software TELEMAC (www.opentelemac.org). Originally developed in France, the software is now freely available and the FORTRAN-based source code is open for developers and users. The software is structured in modules, which can be coupled depending on the purpose. The most common module is Telemac-2D, which is a 2D depth averaged, shallow water based hydrodynamic solver for free surface flows. The more complex model,Telemac-3D, provides RANS averaged three dimensional information on the flow. Both modules can be coupled to Sisyphe, the morphological module, representing sediment transport. Figures 1-4 provide an overview of some selected modules. For completeness, the others are Artemis and Tomawac (for wave and coastal areas), Nestor (extension for Sisyphe), and the one-dimensional solver Mascaret.

=Application=
TELEMAC is well suited to model flow and hydro-morphological processes in rivers, by using either a classical, two-dimensional shallow-water approach or a fully 3D RANS based Navier-Stokes solver. The program has a large number of empirical bed-load and suspended load transport formulae implemented. Additionally, customized developments and extensions can be implemented as described below.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for TELEMAC}}

=Other information=
The availability of the source code makes TELEMAC suitable for developments, extensions and research purposes, beyond the existing framework. On the TELEMAC homepage information on user-specific developments can be found in a source code repository or in the proceedings of the user community events. For example, at TUM the following user-specific extensions have been developed or are currently under development:
*Development for sediment transport to improve the process description and the stability of the code.
*Integration of innovative, data-driven methods instead of classical, morphological simulation approaches.
*Further code optimization for one of the fastest High-Performance-Computer worldwide.
*Concept to provide the computational grid, to estimate relevant parameters and to perform an automated, iterative model calibration.

=Relevant literature=
*Galland,J.C.; Goutal, N., Hervouet, J.M. (1991), TELEMAC: A New Numerical Model for Solving Shallow Water Equations, Advances in Water Resources AWREDI, 14 (3): 138-148, Bibcode:1991AdWR...14..138G, https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(91)90006-A
*Goutal, N. and Maurel, F. (2002).A Finite Volume Solver for 1D Shallow-Water Equations Applied to an Actual River.Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids; 38:1-19
*Goutal, N., Lacombe,J.-M., Zaoui, F., El-Kadi-Abderrezzak, K. (2012). MASCARET: a 1-D Open-Source Software for Flow Hydrodynamic and Water Quality in Open Channel Networks. River Flow 2012 – Murillo (Ed.), pp. 1169-1174

=Contact information=

[[Category:Tools]]

TELEMAC

2020-06-01T14:37:15Z

Laurent:

NOTE: literature incorrect (different from rest) format in report. Needs to be fixed. [[file:broken]]
=Quick summary=
[[file:telemac2d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Telemac2D: Modeling of an embankment failure (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3d.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Telemac-3D: Three-dimensional velocity field (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac2dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Telemac2d+Sisyphe: Morphodynamic evolution in meandering bars (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]
[[file:telemac3dplus.png|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Telemac-3d+Sisyphe:Three-dimensional flow pattern and bed deformation (Source: www.opentelemac.org).]]

Developed by: Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement (LNHE), part of the R&D group of Électricité de France.

Date: 1991 (and later)

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
An international consortium of research institutes, agencies and companies manages the open source software TELEMAC (www.opentelemac.org). Originally developed in France, the software is now freely available and the FORTRAN-based source code is open for developers and users. The software is structured in modules, which can be coupled depending on the purpose. The most common module is Telemac-2D, which is a 2D depth averaged, shallow water based hydrodynamic solver for free surface flows. The more complex model,Telemac-3D, provides RANS averaged three dimensional information on the flow. Both modules can be coupled to Sisyphe, the morphological module, representing sediment transport. Figures 1-4 provide an overview of some selected modules. For completeness, the others are Artemis and Tomawac (for wave and coastal areas), Nestor (extension for Sisyphe), and the one-dimensional solver Mascaret.

=Application=
TELEMAC is well suited to model flow and hydro-morphological processes in rivers, by using either a classical, two-dimensional shallow-water approach or a fully 3D RANS based Navier-Stokes solver. The program has a large number of empirical bed-load and suspended load transport formulae implemented. Additionally, customized developments and extensions can be implemented as described below.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for TELEMAC}}

=Other information=
The availability of the source code makes TELEMAC suitable for developments, extensions and research purposes, beyond the existing framework. On the TELEMAC homepage information on user-specific developments can be found in a source code repository or in the proceedings of the user community events. For example, at TUM the following user-specific extensions have been developed or are currently under development:
*Development for sediment transport to improve the process description and the stability of the code.
*Integration of innovative, data-driven methods instead of classical, morphological simulation approaches.
*Further code optimization for one of the fastest High-Performance-Computer worldwide.
*Concept to provide the computational grid, to estimate relevant parameters and to perform an automated, iterative model calibration.

=Relevant literature=
*"TELEMAC: A New Numerical Model for Solving Shallow Water Equations", J.C. Galland; N. Goutal; J.M. Hervouet, (1991), , Advances in Water Resources AWREDI, 14 (3): 138-148, Bibcode:1991AdWR...14..138G, doi:10.1016/0309-1708(91)90006-A
*"A Finite Volume Solver for 1D Shallow-Water Equations Applied to an Actual River", N. Goutal and F. Maurel, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2002; 38:1-19
*"MASCARET: a 1-D Open-Source Software for Flow Hydrodynamic and Water Quality in Open Channel Networks", N. Goutal, J.-M. Lacombe, F. Zaoui and K. El-Kadi-Abderrezzak, River Flow 2012 – Murillo (Ed.), pp. 1169-1174

=Contact information=

[[Category:Tools]]

Sediment simulation in intakes with Multiblock option (SSIIM)

2020-06-01T14:23:15Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:ssiim_flowchart.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Flow chart of the executable SSIIM (NTNU).]]
[[file:ssiim_parameters.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: List of all available parameters in SSIIM (NTNU).]]

Developed by: NTNU

Date: 2018

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
SSIIM is a numerical model to simulate the hydraulics and sediment transport including bed changes as well as various other parameters related to water quality in fluvial environment. It solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations in all three directions and calculates the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation through the standard k-espilon model. The calculated bed changes are directly coupled to the time steps in the hydraulic computations. SSIIM can use both, an unstructured and a structured grid to discretize the domain of interest.

=Application=
After downloading the SSIIM executable from the webpage mentioned below, the text files "control" and "koordina" have to be established. The control file lists all the control parameter which SSIIM is supposed to execute. There are various parameters depending on the results the user wants to achieve. The koordina file is used to describe the geometry of interest.

Figure 1 shows the flow chart in which way SSIIM is working.

The application of the user does not require any coding, however, the user has to specify certain parameters and the geometry as text in the above mentioned files. These files are generated with any text editor and linked to the main executable. A detailed description can be taken from the manual (Olsen, 2018). The application varies from the most basic simulation of a steady state hydraulic computation to the most complex one, when combining unsteady flow with multiple sediment sizes and wetting and drying of parts of the geometry.

INPUT:
To start a most basic version of a time dependent sediment transport model of a river reach you have to have the geometry in terms of a point cloud file, the discharge Qin=out, the waterlevel height at the downstream end of the reach and the prevailing sediment grain size distribution at the river bed.

OUTPUT:
All the available output parameters can be displayed in the graphical user interface and copied into the clipboard (Figure 2). In addition, it is possible to use a separate post processing tool, like freeware Paraview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParaView) or commercialized Tecplot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecplot).

<gallery widths=250px heights=250px>
file:ssiim_ex1.png|Figure 3a, examples of SSIIM simulations (NTNU)
file:ssiim_ex2.png|Figure 3b, examples of SSIIM simulations (NTNU)
file:ssiim_ex3.png|Figure 3c, examples of SSIIM simulations (NTNU)
</gallery>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Sediment simulation in intakes with Multiblock option (SSIIM)}}

=Other information=
The numerical model can be download free of charge at the webpage listed below. There is a large user group and information is available at many places.

=Relevant literature=

*Olsen, N.R.B. (2018), SSIIM user manual (http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/ssiim/manual5.pdf)

=Contact information=
http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/ssiim/

[[Category:Tools]]

Sediment simulation in intakes with Multiblock option (SSIIM)

2020-06-01T14:22:02Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:ssiim_flowchart.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Flow chart of the executable SSIIM (NTNU).]]
[[file:ssiim_parameters.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: List of all available parameters in SSIIM (NTNU).]]

Developed by: NTNU

Date: 2018

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
SSIIM is a numerical model to simulate the hydraulics and sediment transport including bed changes as well as various other parameters related to water quality in fluvial environment. It solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations in all three directions and calculates the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation through the standard k-espilon model. The calculated bed changes are directly coupled to the time steps in the hydraulic computations. SSIIM can use both, an unstructured and a structured grid to discretize the domain of interest.

=Application=
After downloading the SSIIM executable from the webpage mentioned below, the text files "control" and "koordina" have to be established. The control file lists all the control parameter which SSIIM is supposed to execute. There are various parameters depending on the results the user wants to achieve. The koordina file is used to describe the geometry of interest.

Figure 1 shows the flow chart in which way SSIIM is working.

The application of the user does not require any coding, however, the user has to specify certain parameters and the geometry as text in the above mentioned files. These files are generated with any text editor and linked to the main executable. A detailed description can be taken from the manual (Olsen, 2018). The application varies from the most basic simulation of a steady state hydraulic computation to the most complex one, when combining unsteady flow with multiple sediment sizes and wetting and drying of parts of the geometry.

INPUT:
To start a most basic version of a time dependent sediment transport model of a river reach you have to have the geometry in terms of a point cloud file, the discharge Qin=out, the waterlevel height at the downstream end of the reach and the prevailing sediment grain size distribution at the river bed.

OUTPUT:
All the available output parameters can be displayed in the graphical user interface and copied into the clipboard (Figure 2). In addition, it is possible to use a separate post processing tool, like freeware Paraview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParaView) or commercialized Tecplot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecplot).

<gallery widths=250px heights=250px>
file:ssiim_ex1.png|Figure 3a, examples of SSIIM simulations (NTNU)
file:ssiim_ex2.png|Figure 3b, examples of SSIIM simulations (NTNU)
file:ssiim_ex3.png|Figure 3c, examples of SSIIM simulations(NTNU)
</gallery>

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Sediment simulation in intakes with Multiblock option (SSIIM)}}

=Other information=
The numerical model can be download free of charge at the webpage listed below. There is a large user group and information is available at many places.

=Relevant literature=

*Olsen, N.R.B. (2018), SSIIM user manual (http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/ssiim/manual5.pdf)

=Contact information=
http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/ssiim/

[[Category:Tools]]

File:Ssiim flowchart.png

2020-06-01T14:20:44Z

Laurent:

{{Information
|author=NTNU
|source=http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/ssiim/
|description=Flow chart of the executable SSIIM
}}

File:PIT antennas.png

2020-06-01T14:13:39Z

Laurent:

{{Information
|author= Tetard S.
|source=Tétard, S.; Tomanova, S.; Courret, D.; Sagnes, P. ; Alric, A. ; De Oliveira, E. ; Lagarrigue, T. ; Frey, A. (2017), The efficiency of inclined and oriented racks to prevent Atlantic salmon smolts from entering the turbines, International conference on engineering and ecohydrology for fish passage, June 19-21, 2017 Oregon State University - Corvallis, Oregon (USA)
|description=Example of antennas in a downstream migration channel in France
}}

Radio frequency identification with passive integrated transponder (PIT tagging)

2020-06-01T14:11:41Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:PIT.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Passive Integrated Transponder (source: https://www.oregonrfid.com/new-to-rfid/).]]
[[file:RFID_scheme.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Schema of the RFID system (source: Tomanova et al. 2017) (click to enlarge).]]
[[file:tuning_capacitor.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Example of a tuning capacitor (source: AFB).]]
[[file:RFID_reader.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Example of a RFID reader (source: AFB).]]
[[file:PIT_antennas.png|thumb|250px|Figure 5: Example of antennas in a downstream migration channel in France (source: Tetard et al., 2017).]]

Date: 1973

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system uses PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tags to detect and follow individuals. The PIT tags (Figure 1), each with a unique alphanumeric code, are of small size and benefit of indefinite operational life (no battery is required). When entering in the detection area of a RFID antenna (Figure 2), the reader is responsible of powering and communicating with the tag. The tag antenna captures energy from a tag and transfers the tag’s ID.

Low Frequency RFID uses magnetic fields that can go through water in contrast to high frequency RFID. Owing to the shorter detection range (less than 2 m perpendicular to the antenna plane) RFID technology is mainly suitable for smaller systems. Two different technologies can be used (source: https://www.oregonrfid.com/resources/hdx-fdx/):
*Half duplex RFID (HDX): A half duplex RFID reader generates short magnetic pulses that wirelessly charge a capacitor (Figure 3) inside an HDX tag. When the charge field turns off, the tag uses the stored power to send the tag number back to the reader (Figure 4) without interference from the reader.
*Full duplex RFID (FDX): Full duplex RFID generates a continuous magnetic field which powers the tag to respond immediately. Tags repeat their message, while powered by the field, up to 30 times per second.

The whole system has to be supplied by DC power, powered by different ways:
*Battery
*Solar
*Thermoelectric generator
*Micro hydro (to charge the batteries)
*A power supply can transform the AC power to DC power

=Application=
The RFID technique is used in FIThydro Test Cases in order to follow fishes to study their migration paths, their behaviour and to assess the efficiency of upstream and downstream migration devices and other mitigation measures on habitat.

The PIT tag has to be inserted in the fish by surgical act. For this, the fishes are anaesthetized. The tag is inserted either using a syringe or through a small incision in the abdominal cavity or muscle. Most researchers (Jepsen et al., 2005) adhere to the principle that the weight of the tag should not exceed 2 % of the total weight of the fish.

As for all experiments with living beings, the regulatory obligation must be respected: the personnel must be qualified, the company/organism must be certified and obtain the agreement of an ethics committee. The 3R rule (replace, reduce, refine) must be applied.

This technology allows tagging of very small fishes due to the small size of the tag. It allows following fishes over several years since the tag has no battery and a quasi-endless lifetime. The drawbacks are the size of the antennas and the detection range. Due to the large number of code existing, a large number of fishes can be tagged. It is not sensible to turbidity, or thermal stratification.

One threshold is the effect of metal on the detection ranges of the antennas. Indeed metal is disrupting the signal. For example, it will not be possible to install an antenna in a metal baffle fish pass.

In FIThydro this technology has been used to assess the efficiency of downstream migration devices (Figure 5), fish passes and fish behaviour systems.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Radio frequency identification with passive integrated transponder (PIT tagging)}}

=Other information=
The costs of the technology are acceptable: around 2 € per tag. A reader costs from 2000 to 5000 €.

=Relevant literature=
*https://www.oregonrfid.com/

*Tomanova, S.; Guillemin, A.; Destouches J.P.; Allou, A., (2017), Journée d’échange technique AFB – Utilisation de la RFID, 13-15 novembre 2017.

*European committee for standardization, (2018), Water quality – Guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage solutions using telemetry.

*Tétard, S.; Tomanova, S.; Courret, D.; Sagnes, P. ; Alric, A. ; De Oliveira, E. ; Lagarrigue, T. ; Frey, A. (2017), The efficiency of inclined and oriented racks to prevent Atlantic salmon smolts from entering the turbines, International conference on engineering and ecohydrology for fish passage, June 19-21, 2017 Oregon State University - Corvallis, Oregon (USA)

*Jepsen N, Schreck C, Clements S, Thorstad E. (2005). A Brief Discussion on the 2% tag/Bodymass Rule of Thumb. In Aquatic Telemetry: Advances and Applications – Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry: 9–13 June 2005; Ustica, Italy. Edited by: Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G. Rome: FAO; 2005:255–259.

[[Category:Tools]]

File:Tuning capacitor.jpg

2020-06-01T13:56:43Z

Laurent:

{{Information
|author=
|source=AFB
|description=Example of a tuning capacitor
}}

File:RFID scheme.png

2020-06-01T13:55:32Z

Laurent:

{{Information
|author= Tomanova S.
|source=Tomanova, S.; Guillemin, A.; Destouches J.P.; Allou, A., (2017), Journée d’échange technique AFB – Utilisation de la RFID, 13-15 novembre 2017.
|description= Schema of the RFID system
}}

File:PIT.jpg

2020-06-01T13:53:45Z

Laurent:

{{Information
|author=
|source=https://www.oregonrfid.com/new-to-rfid/
|description= Passive Integrated Transponder
}}

Radio frequency identification with passive integrated transponder (PIT tagging)

2020-06-01T13:50:58Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:PIT.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: Passive Integrated Transponder (source: https://www.oregonrfid.com/new-to-rfid/).]]
[[file:RFID_scheme.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2: Schema of the RFID system (source: Tomanova et al. 2017) (click to enlarge).]]
[[file:tuning_capacitor.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Example of a tuning capacitor (source: AFB).]]
[[file:RFID_reader.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 4: Example of a RFID reader (source: AFB).]]
[[file:PIT_antennas.png|thumb|250px|Figure 5: Example of antennas in a downstream migration channel in France (source: Tetard et al., 2017).]]

Date: 1973

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system uses PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tags to detect and follow individuals. The PIT tags (Figure 1), each with a unique alphanumeric code, are of small size and benefit of indefinite operational life (no battery is required). When entering in the detection area of a RFID antenna (Figure 2), the reader is responsible of powering and communicating with the tag. The tag antenna captures energy from a tag and transfers the tag’s ID.

Low Frequency RFID uses magnetic fields that can go through water in contrast to high frequency RFID. Owing to the shorter detection range (less than 2 m perpendicular to the antenna plane) RFID technology is mainly suitable for smaller systems. Two different technologies can be used (source: https://www.oregonrfid.com/resources/hdx-fdx/):
*Half duplex RFID (HDX): A half duplex RFID reader generates short magnetic pulses that wirelessly charge a capacitor (Figure 3) inside an HDX tag. When the charge field turns off, the tag uses the stored power to send the tag number back to the reader (Figure 4) without interference from the reader.
*Full duplex RFID (FDX): Full duplex RFID generates a continuous magnetic field which powers the tag to respond immediately. Tags repeat their message, while powered by the field, up to 30 times per second.

The whole system has to be supplied by DC power, powered by different ways:
*Battery
*Solar
*Thermoelectric generator
*Micro hydro (to charge the batteries)
*A power supply can transform the AC power to DC power

=Application=
The RFID technique is used in FIThydro Test Cases in order to follow fishes to study their migration paths, their behaviour and to assess the efficiency of upstream and downstream migration devices and other mitigation measures on habitat.

The PIT tag has to be inserted in the fish by surgical act. For this, the fishes are anaesthetized. The tag is inserted either using a syringe or through a small incision in the abdominal cavity or muscle. Most researchers (Jepsen et al., 2005) adhere to the principle that the weight of the tag should not exceed 2 % of the total weight of the fish.

As for all experiments with living beings, the regulatory obligation must be respected: the personnel must be qualified, the company/organism must be certified and obtain the agreement of an ethics committee. The 3R rule (replace, reduce, refine) must be applied.

This technology allows tagging of very small fishes due to the small size of the tag. It allows following fishes over several years since the tag has no battery and a quasi-endless lifetime. The drawbacks are the size of the antennas and the detection range. Due to the large number of code existing, a large number of fishes can be tagged. It is not sensible to turbidity, or thermal stratification.

One threshold is the effect of metal on the detection ranges of the antennas. Indeed metal is disrupting the signal. For example, it will not be possible to install an antenna in a metal baffle fish pass.

In FIThydro this technology has been used to assess the efficiency of downstream migration devices (Figure 5), fish passes and fish behaviour systems.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Radio frequency identification with passive integrated transponder (PIT tagging)}}

=Other information=
The costs of the technology are acceptable: around 2 € per tag. A reader costs from 2000 to 5000 €.

=Relevant literature=
*https://www.oregonrfid.com/

*Tomanova, S.; Guillemin, A.; Destouches J.P.; Allou, A., (2017), Journée d’échange technique AFB – Utilisation de la RFID, 13-15 novembre 2017.

*European committee for standardization, (2018), Water quality – Guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage solutions using telemetry.

*Tétard, S.; Tomanova, S.; Courret, D.; Sagnes, P. ; Alric, A. ; De Oliveira, E. ; Lagarrigue, T. ; Frey, A. (2017), The efficiency of inclined and oriented racks to prevent Atlantic salmon smolts from entering the turbines, International conference on engineering and ecohydrology for fish passage.

*Jepsen N, Schreck C, Clements S, Thorstad E. (2005). A Brief Discussion on the 2% tag/Bodymass Rule of Thumb. In Aquatic Telemetry: Advances and Applications – Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry: 9–13 June 2005; Ustica, Italy. Edited by: Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G. Rome: FAO; 2005:255–259.

[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:43:31Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]], [[Pool-type_fishways]], [[Baffle_fishways]], for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable 2.1 of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1996), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:41:19Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]], [[Pool-type_fishways]], [[Baffle_fishways]], for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the
#REDIRECT [[FIThydro project]]
).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1996), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:40:03Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]], [[Pool-type_fishways]], [[Baffle_fishways]], for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1996), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:37:56Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]], [[Pool-type_fishways]], [[Baffle_fishways]], for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1993), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:37:30Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]],[[Pool-type_fishways]],[[Baffle_fishways]], for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1993), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:35:32Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]],[[Pool-type_fishways]],[[Baffle_fishways]],for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1993), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:35:03Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage ([[Nature-like_fishways]][[Pool-type_fishways]][[Baffle_fishways]]for futher information on the different type of fishways please see the deliverable of the FIThydro project).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1993), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:32:54Z

Laurent:

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage (for futher information on the different type of fishways please see first deliverable of WP2 D2.1). [[Nature-like_fishways]][[Pool-type_fishways]][[baffle]]

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Larinier M., Porcher,J.P. (1993), Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche

*Richard,S. (2018). Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*David, L., Dewitte M. (2018) A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these. Delivrable 2.1, www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:27:50Z

Laurent: /* Relevant literature */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage (for futher information on the different type of fishways please see first deliverable of WP2 D2.1). [[Nature-like_fishways]][[Pool-type_fishways]]

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Michel Larinier et Jean-Pierre Porcher, 1996, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Sylvain Richard, 2018, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018
*www.fithydro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/D2.1-SYGMA.pdf

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:24:30Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage (for futher information on the different type of fishways please see first deliverable of WP2 D2.1). [[Nature-like_fishways]][[Pool-type_fishways]]

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Michel Larinier et Jean-Pierre Porcher, 1996, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Sylvain Richard, 2018, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:23:05Z

Laurent: /* Introduction */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage (for futher information on the different type of fishways please see first deliverable of WP2 D2.1). [[Nature-like_fishways]]

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Michel Larinier et Jean-Pierre Porcher, 1996, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Sylvain Richard, 2018, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]

Cassiopee

2020-06-01T13:16:21Z

Laurent: /* Contact information */

=Quick summary=
[[file:cassiopee_baffle_fishway.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1: Tool to design a baffle fishway in Cassiopée (click to enlarge) (AFB).]]
[[file:cassiopee_las_rives.png|thumb|500px|Figure 2: Example of use of Cassiopée in FIThydro at Las Rives, France. (click to enlarge) (AFB)]]

Developed by: French agency for biodiversity (AFB)

Date: 1993

Type: [[:Category:Tools|Tool]]

=Introduction=
Cassiopée is a computing software for fish pass designers. It allows studying pool-type fishways, baffle fishways and pre-barrage (for futher information on the different type of fishways please see first deliverable of WP2 D2.1).

It was developed by Myriad Software Ltd in 1993, under the scientific direction of Michel Larinier and Jean-Pierre Porcher. It runs on Windows systems and two updates were held in 1996 and 2011.The program only addresses users familiar with designing fish passes. In the process of designing a fish pass, the function of Cassiopée is to compute variables characterizing its operating and to present clear and explicit results.

=Application=
Cassiopée allows the determination of flow and water level for sizing or verifying correct operation for:
*pool-type fishways (with plunging or streaming flow notches, submerged orifices, single or double vertical slots)
*baffle fishways (with Denil type, Fatou type, super-active type or chevron type baffles)
*pre-barrages (with rectangular weir, triangular weir or semi-triangular weir)

For pool-type fishways, three computing tools allow to determination of the geometry of the basins, given the target flow and drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria set by the designer. A fourth tool allows the computation of the size (width and depth) and to altitudinally set the first wall and first basin, given the upstream water level and flow, drop between pools, water levels in the pools and volumetric dissipated power criteria (the altimeter setting of other walls is obtained by substraction from the first wall and the altimeter setting for the basin is based on the drop between pools).

For pre-barrage, it is possible to associate different types of weir (for example, two rectangular weirs with two levels of crest and a semi-triangular weir). The geometry of pre-barrages can be complex and it is possible to provide flows between basins from upstream to downstream but also between the upstream and any basin.

For baffle fishways, after setting the geometry, the software allows to determine level-discharge and flow velocity-discharge relationships. It also allows to compute the number of baffles and the elevations of the first and last baffle and corresponding bottom, from upstream and downstream water levels.

Cassiopée also has 3 computing tools:
*KIVI: tool to simulate the working conditions of a thin weir (Kindsvater and Cater formula) for submerged flow or not (Villemonte coefficient);
*MOODY: tool to compute the discharge or the head loss of a flow in full pipes;
*DEVER: a tool to compute the relationship between upstream water level and discharge transiting at a weir (simple or composed of different spillways with different characteristics).

Examples of the software application are given in Figure 1 and 2,.

In FIThydro, Cassiopée was used to assess the downstream migration discharges in the downstream migration channels at several French Test Cases (Figure 2).
Based on a topographical survey at the Test Case, the topographic data are entered in the DEVER tool in order to assess the global discharge since it is controlled by a weir. It also allows to refine the discharge coefficient of the control weir and to correct the discharge taking into account the approach velocities of the flow upstream of the weir.

=Relevant mitigation measures and test cases=
{{Suitable measures for Cassiopée}}

=Other information=
This software is free but not openly accessible. It is distributed after training on fishway design provided by AFB.

=Relevant literature=
*Michel Larinier et Jean-Pierre Porcher, 1996, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passes à poissons – Notice d’utilisation, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche 1993

*Sylvain Richard, 2018, Cassiopée – Logiciel d’aide au calcul pour le concepteur de passe à poisson, Formation continue AFB, Dispositifs de franchissement piscicole, Toulouse 11-15 juin 2018

=Contact information=
Sylvain Richard (AFB)
Dominique Courret (AFB)
[[Category:Tools]]