Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 1638704

Water Start Up Time Model Validation Test

Abstract

This report is an Oregon Institute of Technology thesis project completed in partial fulfillment for the Masters of Science in Renewable Energy Engineering degree. The testing and research done for this report, investigate the phenomena of water start up time in the spiral case of hydro units. Water start up time is defined as the time it takes for water to accelerate from zero to rated velocity. From analysis of the literature there shows no published article of water start up time being measured and compared to theoretically calculated values. However a multiplier is used to create a buffer in the estimations of water start up time to use in the engineering and selection of governors for hydro units. The multiplier has also been widely used in computer model simulations which causes a dependence of this multiplier. In 2013 an article was published which challenges the hypothesis that water start up time has been over hypothesized and that the multiplier would be of a smaller value than what was hypothesized which would mean that the governing ability is more than what was expected. This proposal of a higher governing ability would mean that the hydro facilities that are currently standing has a higher stability rating than what was initially thought. The higher stability would allow for increased penetration of renewables onto the electrical grid. The lack of actual water start up time measurements as well as the infeasibility of testing on an actual hydro unit meant that a model would need to be designed, built, and tested. The model had two testing parameters that were examined. One of the parameters was flow rate that was controlled by the number of wicket gates that was installed into the system and the other was the reference height from the forebay to tail water. There were one hundred results from the test trials. The data from the trials showed a trend for the multiplier which was not constant as previously hypothesized and instead illustrated a parabolic trend that tapers into a linear digression. This result means that the range of testing was insufficient and the height range in which the trials were taking placed was subjected to higher variability. The results showed that the multiplier used in water start up time is not a constant and is variable based on the water level. The previous hypothesis stating that the water start up time is faster is false. In accordance with the results the trend showed that the actual water start up time is slower than what is hypothesized. This means at lower water levels the hypothesized governing ability is actually less than what is calculated to be using the current method of water start up time calculation for spiral cases. The theoretical analysis showed that with increased water level and flow rate showed that the multiplier has less effect on water start up time. The value of the water start up time tapering off from the experimental data shows that the trend for water start up time for both theoretical and experimental share similarities. An increased testing range of the water level in the trials will hypothetically lower the variability of the multiplier and in turn conform to a linear equation. The linear equation is shown to approach zero with increased head in which a static value can be achieved for a specified range.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lee, Daniel. 2015-12-14. Water Start Up Time Model Validation Test. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1638704

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Validation of the NLR Pumped Storage Hydropower Cost Model

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) first released its pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model in 2023 as the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The PSH cost model cannot replace detailed site-level studies and design, but it is important to validate it against other industry PSH cost estimates. The initial model methodology report validated the cost model for a single proposed site, the Eagle Mountain Project in California. This slide deck documents an expanded validation exercise using cost data from six other sites: Goldendale (Washington), Seminoe (Wyoming), Gordon Butte (Montana), Swan Lake (Oregon), White Pine (Oregon), and Lewis Ridge (Kentucky). It compares itemized costs from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) applications and other reported costs with NLR PSH cost model outputs after customizing inputs for each site. The validation exercise finds that the NLR model's conservative indirect cost assumptions often drive overall cost overestimation, with direct cost comparisons typically agreeing more closely. All cost model estimates are well within an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimation range (-50% to +100%), with five within the AACE Class 4 range (-30% to +50%) and four being within 15%. This result is considered reasonable performance for a parametric model applied at a preliminary design stage.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Pumped Storage Hydropower Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimation

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) develops and hosts a pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model that is the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The NLR PSH cost model was designed originally to consider only upfront capital costs only. This slide deck describes methodology to expand the cost model to include operations and maintenance (OM) costs. OM costs are characterized as five distinct components with unique sources and methods for cost estimation. By combining methods for each of these components into a cumulative OM cost estimate, these methods allow a more complete estimation of total OM costs that agrees with existing literature values. The methods are scalable and transparent, allowing them to be readily to applied to any prospective PSH facility for a representative preliminary OM cost estimate in advance of detailed site-specific engineering and other studies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Staying Current: A Community Readiness Framework for Marine Energy Applied to River Current Energy in Alaska

Marine energy-including wave, tidal, and river current energy-can provide a local energy source for rural and remote communities. Marine energy has the potential to bolster self-sufficiency and create economic opportunities while preserving ecological integrity. Communities may be interested in deploying, testing, and advancing these early-stage technologies to meet their needs. However, limited capacity, workforce constraints, and other barriers can challenge development. To better understand a community's interest in and preparedness for marine energy, we developed a suite of 150 'metrics of readiness.' Organized across seven categories-technical, social, environmental, strategic, governance, economic, financial-and 29 subcategories, the metrics provide a holistic perspective beyond the technical aspects of an energy device. We conducted a desktop application of the metrics of readiness for Igiugig, Alaska. The metrics were applied retrospectively for two points in time: before (2009) and after (2018) in-stream testing of a river current energy device. By documenting changes among categories and subcategories of the metrics, our results show the evolving nature of community readiness for river current energy. They also illustrate how our interdisciplinary framework captures the investment in environmental effects research and commitment to strategic planning that occurred in Igiugig. In future applications, we envision the framework could be used to foster public engagement in marine energy, collaborate with communities in project development, shape capacity building activities, prioritize investments, and inform research needs. While our study focuses on enabling river current energy in Alaska, the metrics of readiness have the potential to inform implementation of other renewable technologies with communities in new geographies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗