Bypass combined with other solutions - Revision history

Bendikhansen at 15:01, 26 January 2021

2021-01-26T15:01:52Z

Bendikhansen: Text replacement - "category:Measures" to "category:Solutions"

2020-10-26T10:01:58Z

Text replacement - "category:Measures" to "category:Solutions"

Bendikhansen: /* Relevant Literature */

2020-09-30T19:26:32Z

Relevant Literature

Bendikhansen: /* Introduction */

2020-09-30T19:15:34Z

Introduction

Bendikhansen at 19:15, 30 September 2020

2020-09-30T19:15:14Z

Bendikhansen at 12:05, 6 April 2020

2020-04-06T12:05:14Z

Bendikhansen at 13:49, 5 April 2020

2020-04-05T13:49:33Z

Bendikhansen at 13:37, 5 April 2020

2020-04-05T13:37:50Z

Bendikhansen at 12:41, 12 March 2020

2020-03-12T12:41:00Z

Bendikhansen: /* Relevant Literature */

2020-03-12T12:40:50Z

Relevant Literature

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 26 January 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:
	*Bau, F., et al. 2013. Anguille et Ouvrages : migration de dévalaison - Suivi par radiopistage de la dévalaison de l’anguille argentée sur le Gave de Pau au niveau des ouvrages hydroélectriques d’Artix, Biron, Sapso, Castetarbe, Baigts et Puyoo (2007-2010). 2013. Rapport de synthèse.		*Bau, F., et al. 2013. Anguille et Ouvrages : migration de dévalaison - Suivi par radiopistage de la dévalaison de l’anguille argentée sur le Gave de Pau au niveau des ouvrages hydroélectriques d’Artix, Biron, Sapso, Castetarbe, Baigts et Puyoo (2007-2010). 2013. Rapport de synthèse.

−	[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Solutions]]	+	[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Solutions]][[category:Needs improvement]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:01, 26 October 2020
Line 34:		Line 34:
	*Bau, F., et al. 2013. Anguille et Ouvrages : migration de dévalaison - Suivi par radiopistage de la dévalaison de l’anguille argentée sur le Gave de Pau au niveau des ouvrages hydroélectriques d’Artix, Biron, Sapso, Castetarbe, Baigts et Puyoo (2007-2010). 2013. Rapport de synthèse.		*Bau, F., et al. 2013. Anguille et Ouvrages : migration de dévalaison - Suivi par radiopistage de la dévalaison de l’anguille argentée sur le Gave de Pau au niveau des ouvrages hydroélectriques d’Artix, Biron, Sapso, Castetarbe, Baigts et Puyoo (2007-2010). 2013. Rapport de synthèse.

−	[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:~~Measures~~]]	+	[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Solutions]]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *Gosset, C., Travade, F., Durif, C. M. F., Rives, J., & Elie, P. (2005). Tests of two types of bypass for downstream migration of eels at a small hydroelectric power plant. River Research and Applications, 21, 1095– 1105.
 *Travade, F., Larinier M., Subra S., Gomes P., De-Oliveira E. Behaviour and passage of European Silver Eels (Anguilla anguilla) at a small hydropower plant during their downstream migration. Knowl. Manage. Aquat. Ecosyst., 398 (2010), pp. 1-19
 [[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *60-70% efficiency for bar spacing of 30-40 mm and good hydraulic conditions and well-designed bypasses
 *80-90% efficiency with bar spacing of 25 mm and good hydraulic conditions and well-designed bypasses
-Studies conducted on eels revealed that the efficiencies of surface or bottom bypasses combined with existing bar racks were much lower than for smolts, as eels do not show strong behavioural repulsion and are therefore likely to pass through the racks. Thus, it appeared necessary to implement physical barriers to reach high efficiency for eels (Gosset, et al., (2005); Travade, et al., (2010) ; Bau, et al., (2013)).
+Studies conducted on eels revealed that the efficiencies of surface or bottom bypasses combined with existing bar racks were much lower than for smolts, as eels do not show strong behavioural repulsion and are therefore likely to pass through the racks. Thus, it appeared necessary to implement physical barriers to reach high efficiency for eels (Gosset, et al., (2005); Travade, et al., (2010); Bau, et al., (2013)).
 In France, it is considered that the association of an outlet with an existing bar rack can be a solution in some cases where the rack surface is already sufficiently large to respect the criteria on the maximum normal velocity (cf. following subsection) and to allow a reduction of the bar spacing (if not already low enough). But in many cases, the achievement of good efficiencies for smolts and/or eels will require reconfiguring the bar racks, or even the water intake, to implement fish guidance bar racks and louvers.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *60-70% efficiency for bar spacing of 30-40 mm and good hydraulic conditions and well-designed bypasses
 *80-90% efficiency with bar spacing of 25 mm and good hydraulic conditions and well-designed bypasses
-Studies conducted on eels revealed that the efficiencies of surface or bottom bypasses combined with existing bar racks were much lower than for smolts, as eels do not show strong behavioural repulsion and are therefore likely to pass through the racks. Thus, it appeared necessary to implement physical barriers to reach high efficiency for eels ( (Gosset, et al., 2005); (Travade, et al., 2010) ; (Bau, et al., 2013)).
+Studies conducted on eels revealed that the efficiencies of surface or bottom bypasses combined with existing bar racks were much lower than for smolts, as eels do not show strong behavioural repulsion and are therefore likely to pass through the racks. Thus, it appeared necessary to implement physical barriers to reach high efficiency for eels (Gosset, et al., (2005); Travade, et al., (2010) ; Bau, et al., (2013)).
 In France, it is considered that the association of an outlet with an existing bar rack can be a solution in some cases where the rack surface is already sufficiently large to respect the criteria on the maximum normal velocity (cf. following subsection) and to allow a reduction of the bar spacing (if not already low enough). But in many cases, the achievement of good efficiencies for smolts and/or eels will require reconfiguring the bar racks, or even the water intake, to implement fish guidance bar racks and louvers.
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 =Relevant Literature=
 [[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]
+[[file:icon_downstream.png|right|150px|link=[[Downstream fish migration]]]]
 =Introduction=
 From the 1980s to the early 2000s, research was conducted, mainly in the USA, Canada and France, to assess the efficiency of surface bypasses combined with conventional bar racks existing at HPPs for turbine protection (solution not too expensive and cumbersome). Most studies focussed on salmonids. The experiments have shown that the efficiency of these systems is heavily dependent on 3 factors (Larinier, et al., 2002):
@@ Line 30: / Line 29: @@
 =Relevant Literature=

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==During planning==
 This mitigation measure consists in adding a bypass to an existing conventional bar rack. The configuration of the water intake must be well known (measurement, physical or numerical modelling). The physical installations of the bypasses must be planned according to the power plant geometry and construction works must be adapted to physical forces and the hydropower scheme.
-=During implementation=
+==During implementation==
 Installation of bypass system requires a suite of skilled labor on civil works.
 ==During operation==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 12 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]		[[category:Downstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]
		+
		+	[[File:broken]]

	=Relevant MTDs and test cases=		=Relevant MTDs and test cases=

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 12 March 2020
Line 8:		Line 8:

	=Relevant Literature=		=Relevant Literature=
−
−	~~[[File:broken]]~~