Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DAMS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

Route-Specific Passage Proportions and Survival Rates for Fish Passing through John Day Dam, The Dalles Dam, and Bonneville Dam in 2010 and 2011

This report fulfills a request of the U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, Oregon, to produce an interim report of estimates of route-specific fish passage proportions and survival rates for lower Columbia River dams in 2010 and 2011. The estimates are needed to update the Compass Model for the Columbia River Treaty and the new Biological Opinion before detail technical reports are published in late 2012. This report tabulates route-specific fish-passage proportions and survival rates for steelhead and Chinook salmon smolts passing through various sampled routes at John Day Dam, The Dalles Dam, and Bonneville Dam in 2010 and 2011. Results were compiled from analyses of data acquired in spring 2010 and 2011 studies that were specifically designed to estimate dam-passage and forebay-to-tailrace survival rates, travel time metrics, and spill passage efficiency, as stipulated by the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords. The study designs allowed for estimation of route-specific fish passage proportions and survival rates as well as estimation of forebay-passage survival, all of which are summarized herein.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

2D Dam-Break Analysis of L Lake and PAR Pond Dams Using HEC-RAS

In 1991 a dam-break study was conducted for the high hazard dams located at L Lake and PAR Pond on the Savannah River Site. Two scenarios were considered, over topping from a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), and a fair weather dam-break for either or both dams. Unfortunately, no inundation map was developed from the study. The purpose of this project was to redo the original dam-break study with improved data and methodology to generate Inundation maps to assist with emergency response and evacuation plans. The Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) is a free to download river analysis modeling program developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers capable of 1D and 2D hydraulic calculations. Version 5.0.7 (released March 2019) was used for this project. Digital elevation models for the area were retrieved from the US Geological Survey database and converted to a .hdf file within the program. Then the 2D flood area was identified from the contours. Both L Lake and PAR Pond were inputted as 1D storage areas because DEM data does not contain elevation values under water bodies. An elevation vs volume curve was available for both storage areas. Initial elevations were set for both scenarios. Both dams are earthen dams. The Steel Creek dam at L Lake has 6 ft diameter conduit with an upper and lower sluice gate. PAR pond dam consist of a weir and sluice gate connected to an 8 x 8 ft channel. Both outlets were modeled with a pool elevation vs discharge curve. The steel creek dam sluice gates were assumed to be fully open in all cases. As in the previous study, the dams were set to breach when they were overtopped by 1.5 ft during PMF conditions (Figure 1). A fair weather breach was set to be due to a piping failure (Figure 1). In the dual dam break during fair weather conditions the PAR pond dam fails 3 hours after Steel Creek to achieve maximum flooding in the down stream reaches. Simulation was run 3 days for each case and with a 1 minute computational interval. Maximum flooding occurs under PMF conditions with the failure of both dams. PAR pond dam fails first 16 hours and 32 minutes after the start of the simulation with the Steel creek dam failing 6 minutes later. In all cases, the bridges and roads spanning Steel Creek and Lower Three Runs will be inundated and potentially washed away. The Burtons Ferry Highway south of the storage areas will be partially flooded during PMF failure, dual fair weather failure, and PAR pond failure under fair weather conditions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hydropower Potential at Non-Powered Dams: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool based on Grid, Community, Industry, and Environmental Impacts

Non-powered dams (NPDs) are dams that do not include hydraulic turbine (hydropower) equipment. Currently, there are more than 80,000 such dams in the United States, which provide a variety of non-energy benefits, including flood control, water supply, navigation, and recreation. Approximately 500 of these NPDs are identified as having the potential to add hydropower generation (totaling up to a capacity of more than 8200 MW). A large share of investment costs and environmental impacts of dam construction have already been incurred at these NPDs. Hence, adding power to the existing dam structure is hypothesized to be achieved at a lower cost, with less risk, and a shorter timeframe than the development required for new dam construction. The abundance of NPDs, the associated environmental favorability, and cost advantages, combined with the reliability, predictability, and dispatchability of hydropower, make NPDs a strong candidate in the nation’s renewable energy portfolio. To assess the NPD to hydropower conversion potential, in this study, we developed a GIS-based multi-criterial decision analysis tool, which allows users to rank these NPDs based on the grid, community, industry, and environmental impacts (i.e., GCIE impacts). This web-based interactive tool (developed using open-source Python and JavaScript) lets the user choose from a wide range of features to define each of the GCIE impact scores through a user-friendly graphical user interface. These features are related to dam operation, hydropower generation opportunity, power market economy, social vulnerability and risk, proximity to critical infrastructure and energy generating facilities, environmental concerns (air, water, and critical habitat), and exposure to natural hazards. The overall priority score of NPDs is calculated based on user-defined weights for each of the GCIE impact scores. Besides ranking NPDs, the tool can also be used to estimate the energy-storage feasibility (battery, hydrogen, and pump-storage hydropower) at each of the potential sites.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Contextualizing Non-Powered Dam Site Selection for Archimedes Screw Turbines: A Methodology for Responsible Archimedes Screw Turbine Conversion at Existing Dams

Non-powered dams represent 97% of dams in the United States and their energy generation potential has not been fully realized. The use of an Archimedes screw turbine to generate power at non-powered dams offers a dual benefit; producing electricity, and acting as downstream fish passage, helping to reconnect previously separated ecosystems. In this study, we assess the technical, environmental, social, and economic feasibility of generating power at non-powered U.S. dam sites using Archimedes screw turbines by integrating mechanical constraints, social impact metrics, proximity to infrastructure, and environmental sensitivity data. Results account for future precipitation predictions and show, between 2024 and 2050, the number of sites where Archimedes screw turbines are viable decreases by one site, but overall generation capacity increases due to increased flow rates across persisting locations. Our analysis identified 82 non-powered dam sites with a mean generation capacity of 49 kW that meet the mechanical requirements for Archimedes screw turbine technology in 2024. Our analysis presents a framework for considering social, environmental, and economic impacts of specific turbine technologies to convert non-powered dams to generate power.

Archimedes screw turbine↗

HydroFish: freshwater fish co-occurrence with hydropower plants and non-powered dams in conterminous United States sub-basins

The HydroFish dataset lists all existing hydropower plants (EHAs) and non-powered dams (NPDs; ≥ 0.001 MW potential nominal capacity), delineates the hydrologic sub-basins in which they are situated, and then lists all freshwater fish species reported to occur in those sub-basins. This dataset was compiled using the HydroBio dataset (https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/data/datasets/hydrobio/) and contains 24 total variables that describe hydrologic sub-basins, each unique EHA (plant ID and name, geographic coordinates, permit type, capacity, etc.) and NPD (ID value, known names, geographic coordinates, and estimated potential nominal capacity), and freshwater fish species in the sub-basin (common and scientific name, origin, and migratory and threat status). The HydroBio dataset was built using Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Existing Hydropower Assets Dataset (2024 version) and Non-powered Dam Technical Potential Dataset (2024 version), and NatureServe’s fish species distribution dataset (2023 version). The dataset also contains summary variables that report the unique number of EHAs, NPDs, and freshwater fish species per sub-basin. The HydroFish dataset contains two unique data files: 1) a .csv metadata file describing the dataset variables, and 2) a .csv data file containing the actual dataset. Note that there may be many rows per unique existing hydropower plant or non-powered dam given that distinct species are listed per existing plant or NPD per sub-basin. The dataset is downloadable as a zip file containing the metadata and dataset files.

Bozeman, Bryan [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN↗

VotE-Dams: a compilation of global dams' locations and attributes (v1)

This dataset represents a compilation of two global and three USA-specific datasets of dam locations and their attributes. The major hurdle toward developing this compilation was the identification of duplicates within the source datasets, especially given the variable precision of dam location coordinates. The most immediately-useful product in this dataset is a spreadsheet (VotE-Dams_v1.csv) that documents the unique dams found across the datasets, their coordinates, and their ids within the respective source datasets. We do not reproduce the source datasets (GRaND, GOODD, GeoDAR, NID, and EHA) here, but their download locations are provided in the README files ('Overview' tab). Some of the source datasets are provided as shapefiles, which require geospatial data software to open (e.g. QGIS/ArcGIS for graphical display, geopandas for Python, rgdal for R, many others freely available). The provided README documents metadata of the source datasets and provides attribute-linking information (i.e. matches attributes among various source datasets that contain the same, or similar, information but have different names). Note that the README is provided as both .xslx and a collection of .csvs (one per tab in the .xslx file). We suggest using the .xlsx version that preserves images, formatting, and sheets. .xlsx files can be viewed using (free) Google Docs or Microsoft Excel.Finally, we provide Technical Documentation.pdf that describes the procedures used to identify unique and duplicate dams.The title of this dataset refers to our 'Veins of the Earth' (VotE) project, which seeks to provide a flexible, scale-free representation of the Earth's river networks. Dams are a critical component of VotE as they heavily influence flows throughout river networks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Patterns, drivers, and a predictive model of dam removal cost in the United States

Given the burgeoning dam removal movement and the large number of dams approaching obsolescence in the United States, cost estimating data and tools are needed for dam removal prioritization, planning, and execution. We used the list of removed dams compiled by American Rivers to search for publicly available reported costs for dam removal projects. Total cost information could include component costs related to project planning, dam deconstruction, monitoring, and several categories of mitigation activities. We compiled reported costs from 455 unique sources for 668 dams removed in the United States from 1965 to 2020. The dam removals occurred within 571 unique projects involving 1–18 dams. When adjusted for inflation into 2020 USD, cost of these projects totaled $\$1.522$ billion, with per-dam costs ranging from $\$1$ thousand (k) to $\$268.8$ million (M). The median cost for dam removals was $\$157$k, $\$823$k, and $\$6.2$M for dams that were< 5 m, between 5–10 m, and > 10 m in height, respectively. Geographic differences in total costs showed that northern states in general, and the Pacific Northwest in particular, spent the most on dam removal. The Midwest and the Northeast spent proportionally more on removal of dams less than 5 m in height, whereas the Northwest and Southwest spent the most on larger dam removals > 10 m tall. We used stochastic gradient boosting with quantile regression to model dam removal cost against potential predictor variables including dam characteristics (dam height and material), hydrography (average annual discharge and drainage area), project complexity (inferred from construction and sediment management, mitigation, and post-removal cost drivers), and geographic region. Dam height, annual average discharge at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant drivers of removal cost. The final model had an R 2 of 57% and when applied to a test dataset model predictions had a root mean squared error of $\$5.09$M and a mean absolute error of $\$1.45$M, indicating its potential utility to predict estimated costs of dam removal. We developed a R shiny application for estimating dam removal costs using customized model inputs for exploratory analyses and potential dam removal planning.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

MORPHODYNAMIC MODELING OF FLOW AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OVER LOW-HEAD, RUN-OF-RIVER DAMS

Low-head or Run-of-River (RoR) dams exist on all types of rivers throughout the United States, yet the exact mechanisms of how sediment moves around the structures have not been well researched. Due to the increasing use of RoR dams in small hydroelectric projects, there is a need to better understand the controlling factors of how sediment passes over these dams. A one-dimensional morphodynamic model was developed to investigate the effects of RoR dams on channel morphology over long time scales. The model solves the gradually varied flow equations to compute the flow field in the vicinity of the dam, computes grain-size-specific sediment transport rates, and uses sediment mass conservation and vertical storage bookkeeping to calculate the evolution of bed elevation, the bed surface grain-size distribution, and the vertical pattern of stratigraphy. The model’s hydraulic calculations were calibrated using data collected from a series of flume experiments performed with a model RoR dam to better capture the non-hydrostatic flow over a dam. Numerical experiments designed to investigate how the grain-size distribution of the sediment supply rate, flow rate (steady and unsteady), and dam height act as controls on sediment passage over RoR dams were conducted using parameters reported in the literature for a RoR dam in northern Delaware.These one-dimensional simulations were complemented with a few simulations using, a two-dimensional morphodynamic model, Nays2DH. The 1D simulation results show that the stored sediment upstream of RoR dams does depend on the sediment supply, dam height, grain-size and flow discharge. Once sedimentation in the reservoir has reached equilibrium, high flow events will reduce or scour the sediment while lower flows will typically increase the amount of sediment behind the dam. Finally, a dam that stores more sediment will have greater downstream effects in terms of changes to grain-sizes and bed elevation due to the increased time it ii takes to pass sediment over the dam and reach an equilibrium condition on the upstream side of the dam.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Vulnerability of Karangkates dams area by means of zero crossing analysis of data magnetic

Study with entitled Vulnerability Karangkates Dam Area By Means of Zero Crossing Analysis of Data Magnetic has been done. The study was aimed to obtain information on the vulnerability of two parts area of Karangkates dams, i.e. Lahor dam which was inaugurated in 1977 and Sutami dam inaugurated in 1981. Three important things reasons for this study are: 1). The dam age was 36 years old for Lahor dam and 32 years old for Sutami dam, 2). Geologically, the location of the dams are closed together to the Pohgajih local shear fault, Selorejo local fault, and Selorejo limestone-andesite rocks contact plane, and 3). Karangkates dams is one of the important Hydro Power Plant PLTA with the generating power of about 400 million KWH per year from a total of about 29.373MW installed in Indonesia. Geographically, the magnetic data acquisition was conducted at coordinates (112.4149oE;-8.2028oS) to (112.4839oE;-8.0989oS) by using Proton Precession Magnetometer G-856. Magnetic Data acquisition was conducted in the radial direction from the dams with diameter of about 10 km and the distance between the measurements about 500m. The magnetic data acquisition obtained the distribution of total magnetic field value in the range of 45800 nT to 44450 nT. Residual anomalies obtained by doing some corrections, including diurnal correction, International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) correction, and reductions so carried out the distribution of the total magnetic field value in the range of -650 nT to 700 nT. Based on the residual anomalies, indicate the presence of 2 zones of closed closures dipole pairs at located in the west of the Sutami dam and the northwest of the Lahor dam from 5 total zones. Overlapping on the local geological map indicated the lineament of zero crossing patterns in the contour of residual anomaly contour with the Pohgajih shear fault where located at about 4 km to the west of the Sutami dam approximately and andesite-limestone rocks contact where located at about 6 km to the west of the Lahor dam approximately. These shown a possible of vulnerability on geohazards at the west zone of the Karangkates (Lahor-Sutami) dams area if there are triggers by the vibration (earthquake) on the Pohgajih shear fault, andesite-limestone contact plane, and instability rocks on two zones of closed closure dipole pairs area. Reality, on the location of the study shown some local landslide at the several locations and the main road that need considering for disaster mitigation.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States

The United States has produced clean, renewable electricity from hydropower for more than 100 years, but hydropower-producing facilities represent only a fraction of the infrastructure development that has taken place on the nation’s waterways. In contrast to the roughly 2,500 dams that provide 78 gigawatts (GW) 1 of conventional and 22 GW of pumped-storage hydropower, the United States has more than 80,000 non-powered dams (NPDs)—dams that do not produce electricity—providing a variety of services ranging from water supply to inland navigation. Importantly, many of the monetary costs and environmental impacts of dam construction have already been incurred at NPDs, so adding power to the existing dam structure can often be achieved at lower cost, with less risk, and in a shorter timeframe than development requiring new dam construction. The abundance, cost, and environmental favorability of NPDs, combined with the reliability and predictability of hydropower, make these dams a highly attractive source for expanding the nation’s renewable energy supply. To better characterize this unique national resource, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind and Water Power Program has undertaken a national-scale analysis of U.S. dams to determine the ability of NPDs to provide hydroelectric power. DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), with input from DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, quantified the potential capacity and generation available from adding power production capability to U.S. NPDs. Of the more than 80,000 NPDs throughout the U.S., 54,391 dams were analyzed, with remaining dams eliminated from consideration due to erroneous geographic information, or erroneous flow or drainage area attributes that could not be resolved and corrected through independent investigation of maps and records. Anecdotal information suggests that these dams with missing or erroneous information are likely to be relatively small or have low potential to produce hydroelectric energy. Dams with a reported height of less than five feet were also excluded from analysis. A thorough quality control and review process ensured that the 54,391 remaining NPDs were analyzed and characterized as accurately as possible. Figure ES-1 demonstrates the spatial and capacity potential distribution of the nation’s NPDs. Electric generating capacities included in the report were calculated using the assumption that all water passing a facility would be available for conversion into electrical energy and that hydraulic head at the facility would remain constant. The analysis did not consider the economic feasibility of developing each unpowered facility. The assessment provides preliminary information for stakeholders (such as developers, municipal planners, and policymakers), who can further evaluate the potential to increase hydropower production at NPD sites. Developers could use the information provided in this assessment to focus on more detailed analysis of sites that demonstrate a reasonable potential for being developed. Adding power to U.S. NPDs has the potential to add up to 12 GW (12,000 megawatts or MW) of new renewable capacity—a potential equivalent to increasing the size of the existing conventional hydropower fleet by 15%. A majority of this potential is concentrated in just 100 NPDs, which could contribute approximately 8 GW of clean, reliable hydropower; the top 10 facilities alone could add up to 3 GW of new hydropower. Eighty-one of the 100 top NPDs are U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) facilities, many of which, including all of the top 10, are navigation locks on the Ohio River, Mississippi River, Alabama River, and Arkansas River, as well as their major tributaries. This study also shows that dams owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation hold the potential to add approximately 260 MW of capacity; the Bureau has also engaged in an effort to conduct a more detailed evaluation of its own facilities.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Compliance Monitoring of Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead Survival and Passage at John Day Dam, 2012

The purpose of this compliance study was to estimate dam passage survival of yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts at John Day Dam during the spring and summer outmigrations in 2012. Under the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp), dam passage survival should be greater than or equal to 0.96 for spring migrants and greater than or equal to 0.93 for summer migrants, estimated with a standard error (SE) less than or equal to 0.015. The study also estimated smolt passage survival from the forebay 2 km upstream of the dam to the tailrace 3 km downstream of the dam, as well as the forebay residence time, tailrace egress time, spill passage efficiency (SPE), and fish passage efficiency (FPE), as required in the Columbia Basin Fish Accords (Fish Accords). A virtual/paired-release design was used to estimate dam passage survival at John Day Dam. The approach included releases of smolts, tagged with acoustic micro-transmitters, above John Day Dam that contributed to the formation of a virtual release at the face of John Day Dam. A survival estimate from this release was adjusted by a paired release below John Day Dam. A total of 3376 yearling Chinook salmon, 5726 subyearling Chinook salmon, and 3239 steelhead smolts were used in the virtual releases. Sample sizes for the below-dam paired releases (R2 and R3, respectively) were 997 and 995 for yearling Chinook salmon smolts, 986 and 983 for subyearling Chinook salmon smolts, and 1000 and 1000 for steelhead smolts. The Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS) tags were manufactured by Advanced Telemetry Systems. Model SS300 tags, weighing 0.304 g in air, were surgically implanted in yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon, and Model SS130 tag, weighing 0.438 g in air, were surgically implanted in juvenile steelhead for this investigation. The intent of the spring study was to estimate dam passage survival during both 30% and 40% spill conditions. The two spill conditions were to be systematically performed in alternating 2-day test intervals over the course of the spring outmigration. High flow conditions in 2012 interrupted the spill study. Dam passage survival was therefore estimated season-wide regardless of spill conditions.

Skalski, J. R.↗

How Does Flow Alteration Propagate Across a Large, Highly Regulated Basin? Dam Attributes, Network Context, and Implications for Biodiversity

Abstract Large dams are a leading cause of river ecosystem degradation. Although dams have cumulative effects as water flows downstream in a river network, most flow alteration research has focused on local impacts of single dams. Here we examined the highly regulated Colorado River Basin (CRB) to understand how flow alteration propagates in river networks, as influenced by the location and characteristics of dams as well as the structure of the river network—including the presence of tributaries. We used a spatial Markov network model informed by 117 upstream‐downstream pairs of monthly flow series (2003–2017) to estimate flow alteration from 84 intermediate‐to‐large dams representing >83% of the total storage in the CRB. Using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression, we then investigated how flow alteration was influenced by local dam properties (e.g., purpose, storage capacity) and network‐level attributes (e.g., position, upstream cumulative storage). Flow alteration was highly variable across the network, but tended to accumulate downstream and remained high in the main stem. Dam impacts were explained by network‐level attributes (63%) more than by local dam properties (37%), underscoring the need to consider network context when assessing dam impacts. High‐impact dams were often located in sub‐watersheds with high levels of native fish biodiversity, fish imperilment, or species requiring seasonal flows that are no longer present. These three biodiversity dimensions, as well as the amount of dam‐free downstream habitat, indicate potential to restore river ecosystems via controlled flow releases. Our methods are transferrable and could guide screening for dam reoperation in other highly regulated basins.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Compliance Monitoring of Yearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead Survival and Passage at Bonneville Dam, Spring 2011

The purpose of this compliance study was to estimate dam passage survival of yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts at Bonneville Dam during spring 2011. Under the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (BiOp), dam passage survival should be greater than or equal to 0.96 and estimated with a standard error (SE) less than or equal to 0.015. The study also estimated smolt passage survival from the forebay 2 km upstream of the dam to the tailrace 1 km below the dam, as well as the forebay residence time, tailrace egress, and spill passage efficiency, as required in the Columbia Basin Fish Accords. A virtual/paired-release design was used to estimate dam passage survival at Bonneville Dam. The approach included releases of acoustic-tagged smolts above Bonneville Dam that contributed to the formation of a virtual release at the face of the dam. A survival estimate from this release was adjusted by a paired release below Bonneville Dam. A total of 7692 yearling Chinook salmon and 7766 steelhead smolts were tagged and released during the study. The Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS) tag model number ATS-156dB, weighing 0.438 g in air, was used in this investigation. The high flows during spring 2011 disrupted planned 100 kcfs spill operations at Bonneville Dam. Therefore, dam passage survival was estimated for the early part of the study (i.e., 30 April–13 May) when spill was about 100 kcfs and for the entire season, which included much higher spill levels from 18–31 May 2011.

Skalski, J. R.↗