Assessment of Riverine Currents to Estimate the Theoretical Hydrokinetic Power and Energy Using Hydraulic Geometry

ماشین های کشاورزی

Volume 14, Issue 3 - Serial Number 33, September 2024, Pages 319-336   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.2023.82429.1166

Authors

M. Sadeghi-Delooee; R. Alimardani^* ; H. Mousazadeh

Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
There are two types of hydropower harvesting methods: conventional and unconventional. In the conventional method, the potential energy of water is harvested using a dam or barrage. However, in the unconventional method, the kinetic energy of flowing water is extracted using hydrokinetic turbines. Resource assessment is a pivotal step in developing hydrokinetic energy sites. Power density (power per unit area) is used to estimate the theoretical hydrokinetic power of a site. Flow velocity and cross-sectional area are the two variables that constitute the power density. Researchers use various methods such as numerical simulation, direct velocity measurement, or indirect velocity calculation using discharge data to conduct resource assessment. In the latter method, the Manning equation is used to convert the discharge data into velocity values. While this method is straightforward for canals, given their fixed and known geometry, it is cumbersome to calculate the hydraulic radius in rivers. To overcome this challenge, numerous researchers have proposed the utilization of hydraulic geometry (HG) to estimate the width and depth of a river reach, and then calculate the hydraulic radius based on these estimated values. The main objective of this study is to present and implement a fast method for assessing theoretical hydrokinetic power using the HG and the Manning equation.
Materials and Methods
In the present study, two hydrometry stations (Gachsar and Siera-Karaj) were selected in the Karaj dam watershed in Iran to implement resource assessment based on HG. A computer code comprising the following four steps was developed in Python using the Google COLAB environment.
Data Preparation: The monthly-averaged discharge, Manning roughness coefficient, and slope were collected and imported into the code. The roughness coefficient could be determined directly or indirectly. In the present study, it was considered to be 0.045 for the Karaj River according to the literature review. ArcGIS software and the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) were used to extract the local slope of each hydrometry station. For this purpose, the stream network of Alborz province was first extracted, and then the longitudinal elevation profile was measured using the 3D Analyst tools.
Discharge Data Processing: The flow duration curve (FDC) is one of the computational tools used by engineers to describe the hydrological regime of watersheds. FDC is a graphical representation of the cumulative distribution of flows. In the present study, an all-time record FDC for each station was constructed, and fitted with five different probability distribution functions (PDF). The results of PDF fittings were evaluated by different goodness-of-fit indices, and the best PDF was selected.
Calculations of HG and the Manning Equation: The HG formulas were used to calculate the width and depth of flow using the reconstructed FDC from the previous step. These values, along with the roughness coefficient and slope, were used to calculate flow velocity using the Manning equation. After obtaining the flow velocity values, the power density was easily computed.
Generating Outputs: In the final step, two categories of outputs are generated: (1) duration curves for width, depth, flow velocity, and power density, and (2) theoretical and turbine-extracted energy diagrams.
Results and Discussion
The goodness-of-fit indices for PDF fitting indicated that the log-normal PDF is the most suitable distribution to describe the FDC with a coefficient of determination of 0.99. The calculated average discharge (Q₅₀) for the Gachsar and Siera stations was 2.34 and 7.68 m³s^-1, respectively. These values are consistent with findings from previous studies. The results of the Manning equation calculations revealed that the flow velocity does not differ significantly between these stations (8% higher at Siera). The base flow depth at the Gachsar and Siera stations is less than 1 m. Therefore, as indicated in the literature review, axial flow (propeller) turbines are not suitable for installation in these rivers because they need to be fully submerged and require at least 1 m of depth. Overall, the use of wide and short turbines, such as Savonius turbines, is suggested in the Karaj River. The energy analysis results show that the maximum monthly theoretical energy at Gachsar and Siera equals 38,500 and 125,500 kWh, respectively. However, considering a turbine with a 1 m² swept area and a power coefficient of 0.2, the maximum monthly extracted energy is limited to 940 and 1,142 kWh at these two stations.
Conclusion
This study presents a fast method for the theoretical assessment of hydrokinetic power, which was applied to two hydrometry stations in the Karaj dam watershed. The results of HG calculations revealed that the base velocity (V₉₀) of 1.34 and 1.49 m/s is present at the Gachsar and Siera stations, respectively. According to the available depths at these stations, the use of wide and short turbines such as Savonius turbines is suggested. Each individual Savonius turbine with a unit swept area at Gachsar and Siera is estimated to extract a maximum monthly energy of 940 and 1,142 kWh, respectively.

Keywords

Flow duration curve; Hydraulic radius; Manning equation; Monthly energy; Probability distribution

References

1. Adeogun, A. G., Ganiyu, H. O., Ladokun, L. L., & Ibitoye, B. A. (2020). Evaluation of hydrokinetic energy potentials of selected rivers in Kwara State, Nigeria. Environmental Engineering Research, 25(3), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.028
2. Ali, F., Srisuwan, C., Techato, K., Bennui, A., Suepa, T., & Niammuad, D. (2020). Theoretical hydrokinetic power potential assessment of the U-Tapao River Basin using GIS. Energies, 13(7), 1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071749
3. Allen, P. M., Arnold, J. C., & Byars, B. W. (1994). Downstream channel geometry for use in planning‐level models 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 30(4), 663-671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1994.tb03321.x
4. Arabkhedri, M., Sedarati, K., & Esmali, A. (2017). The trend of suspended sediment changes of Karaj and ‎Jajroud rivers during recent decades. Watershed Engineering and Management, 9(1), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijwmse.2017.108755
5. Arman, N. (2006). Calibrating Manning's roughness coefficient in Karaj river reaches and analyzing it with HEC-RAS software University of Tehran. https://noordoc.ir/thesis/19284
6. Babaei, L., Jalili, M. H., Aminzadeh, Z., Soleimani, F., & Hazbavi, Z. (2022). Modeling of monthly flow duration curve using nonlinear regression method for un-gauged watersheds of Ardabil Province. Iranian Journal of Rainwater Catchment Systems, 9(4), 1-18. http://jircsa.ir/article-1-439-fa.html
7. Bomhof, J. (2014). Estimating flow, hydraulic geometry, and hydrokinetic power at ungauged locations in Canada University of Ottawa. http://hdl.handle.net/10393/30383
8. Broad, S., & Corkrey, R. (2011). Estimating annual generation rates of total P and total N for different land uses in Tasmania, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(6), 1609-1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.023
9. Burgan, H. I., & Aksoy, H. (2020). Monthly Flow Duration Curve Model for Ungauged River Basins. Water, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020338
10. Chilkoti, V., Bolisetti, T., & Balachandar, R. (2019). Diagnostic evaluation of hydrologic models employing flow duration curve. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 24(6), 05019009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001778
11. Da Silva Holanda, P., Blanco, C. J. C., Mesquita, A. L. A., Junior, A. C. P. B., de Figueiredo, N. M., Macêdo, E. N., & Secretan, Y. (2017). Assessment of hydrokinetic energy resources downstream of hydropower plants. Renewable Energy, 101, 1203-1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.011
12. dos Santos, I. F. S., Camacho, R. G. R., Tiago Filho, G. L., Botan, A. C. B., & Vinent, B. A. (2019). Energy potential and economic analysis of hydrokinetic turbines implementation in rivers: An approach using numerical predictions (CFD) and experimental data. Renewable Energy, 143, 648-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.018
13. Eshra, N. M., Zobaa, A. F., & Abdel Aleem, S. H. E. (2021). Assessment of mini and micro hydropower potential in Egypt: Multi-criteria analysis. Energy Reports, 7, 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.165
14. Fiedler, K., & Döll, P. (2010). Monthly and daily variations of continental water storage and flows. System Earth via Geodetic-Geophysical Space Techniques, 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10228-8_35
15. Gerlinger, K., & Demuth, N. (2000). Operational flood forecasting for the Moselle River Basin. Proceedings of the European Conference on Advances in Flood Research, Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung, Potsdam, Germany.
16. Ghaforpur-Anbaran, P., Ahmadabadi, A., Ghanavati, E., & Yasi, M. (2023). Hydro-Morphological Analysis of Karaj River in the Urban Area from Beylqan to the Railway Bridge. Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 13(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.22126/ges.2022.8026.2552
17. Henrique da Costa Oliveira, C., de Lourdes Cavalcanti Barros, M., Alves Castelo Branco, D., Soria, R., & Cesar Colonna Rosman, P. (2021). Evaluation of the hydraulic potential with hydrokinetic turbines for isolated systems in locations of the Amazon region. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 45, 101079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101079
18. Hu, Z., & Du, X. (2012). Reliability analysis for hydrokinetic turbine blades. Renewable Energy, 48, 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.05.002
19. Hydrometry Stations Data. (2023). Iranian Water Resources Management Company. Retrieved 5/10/2023 from stu.wrm.ir
20. Ibrahim, W., Mohamed, M., & Ismail, R. (2021). The potential of hydrokinetic energy harnessing in Pahang river basin. Proceedings of the 12^th National Technical Seminar on Unmanned System Technology 2020: NUSYS’20, 1163-1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2406-3_85
21. Ibrahim, W., Mohamed, M., Ismail, R., Leung, P., Xing, W., & Shah, A. (2021). Hydrokinetic energy harnessing technologies: A review. Energy Reports, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.04.003
22. Jenkinson, R. (2010). Assessment of Canada’s hydrokinetic power potential.
23. John, B., & Varghese, J. (2021a). Optimum sizing of hydrokinetic turbine integrated photovoltaic-battery system incorporating uncertainties of resources. International Journal of Green Energy, 18(6), 645-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.1875472
24. John, B., & Varghese, J. (2021b). Sizing and techno-economic analysis of hydrokinetic turbine based standalone hybrid energy systems. Energy, 221, 119717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119717
25. Kallio, M., Guillaume, J. H., Virkki, V., Kummu, M., & Virrantaus, K. (2021). Hydrostreamer v1. 0–improved streamflow predictions for local applications from an ensemble of downscaled global runoff products. Geoscientific Model Development, 14(8), 5155-5181. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5155-2021
26. Karam, A., Safari, A., & Hajehforosh Nia, S. (2015). Analysis of flood and fluvial processes in the occurrence of environmental hazards (Case Study: Arange Basin, Karaj River). Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards, 2(2), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.jsaeh.2.2.53
27. Karimi, S., Pourebrahim, S., Salajegheh, A., Malekian, A., Strauch, M., Volk, M., & Witing, F. (2021). Environmental flow requirements of Karaj River’s sub-watersheds using Flow Duration Curve and Indicators of Hydrological Alteration. Journal of Pasture and Watershed Management, 74(2), 393-405. https://doi.org/10.22059/jrwm.2021.270394.1322
28. Keihani, A., Akhoondali, A., & Fathian, H. (2021). Multivariate Frequency Analysis of Peak Discharge and Suspended and Bed Sediment Load in Karaj Basin. Iran Water Resources Management, 17(1), 47-67.
29. Khaliq, M., & Cousineau, J. (2020). Assessment of Canada’s Hydrokinetic Resources: A Review of Hydrologic Considerations. National Research Council Canada= Conseil national de recherches Canada.
30. Khani, M. S., Shahsavani, Y., Mehraein, M., & Kisi, O. (2023). Performance evaluation of the savonius hydrokinetic turbine using soft computing techniques. Renewable Energy, 215, 118906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.118906
31. Khatooni, K., Hooshyaripor, F., MalekMohammadi, B., & Noori, R. (2023). A combined qualitative–quantitative fuzzy method for urban flood resilience assessment in Karaj City, Iran. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27377-x
32. Khosravi, K., Sheikh Khozani, Z., & Cooper, J. R. (2021). Predicting stable gravel-bed river hydraulic geometry: A test of novel, advanced, hybrid data mining algorithms. Environmental Modelling & Software, 144, 105165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105165
33. Killingtveit, Å. (2019). 8- Hydropower. In T. M. Letcher (Ed.), Managing Global Warming (pp. 265-315). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814104-5.00008-9
34. Killingtveit, Å. (2022). Hydropower Resources Assessment—Potential for Further Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819727-1.00069-8
35. Kirby, K., Ferguson, S., Rennie, C., Nistor, I., & Cousineau, J. (2022). Assessments of available riverine hydrokinetic energy: a review. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 49(6), 839-854. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2021-0178
36. Kirke, B. (2019). Hydrokinetic and ultra-low head turbines in rivers: A reality check. Energy for Sustainable Development, 52, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.06.002
37. Kirke, B. (2020). Hydrokinetic turbines for moderate sized rivers. Energy for Sustainable Development, 58, 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.08.003
38. Langat, P. K., Kumar, L., & Koech, R. (2019). Identification of the most suitable probability distribution models for maximum, minimum, and mean streamflow. Water, 11(4), 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040734
39. Lata-García, J., Jurado, F., Fernández-Ramírez, L. M., & Sánchez-Sainz, H. (2018). Optimal hydrokinetic turbine location and techno-economic analysis of a hybrid system based on photovoltaic/hydrokinetic/hydrogen/battery. Energy, 159, 611-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.183
40. Leopold, L. B., & Maddock Jr, T. (1953). The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications [Report](252). (Professional Paper, Issue. U. S. G. P. Office. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp252
41. Luan, J., Liu, D., Lin, M., & Huang, Q. (2021). The construction of the flow duration curve and the regionalization parameters analysis in the northwest of China. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 12(6), 2639-2653. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.324
42. Nhabetse, T., Cuamba, B., Kucel, S., & Mungoi, N. (2017). Assessment of hydrokinetic potential in the Umbeluzi Basin, Mozambique. Proceedings of the ISES Solar World Congress 2017 with IEA SHC Solar Heating and Cooling Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
43. Niebuhr, C. M., van Dijk, M., Neary, V. S., & Bhagwan, J. N. (2019). A review of hydrokinetic turbines and enhancement techniques for canal installations: Technology, applicability and potential. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.047
44. Pugliese, A., Farmer, W. H., Castellarin, A., Archfield, S. A., & Vogel, R. M. (2016). Regional flow duration curves: Geostatistical techniques versus multivariate regression. Advances in Water Resources, 96, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.06.008
45. Punys, P., Adamonyte, I., Kvaraciejus, A., Martinaitis, E., Vyciene, G., & Kasiulis, E. (2015). Riverine hydrokinetic resource assessment. A case study of a lowland river in Lithuania. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 643-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.155
46. Ridgill, M., Lewis, M. J., Robins, P. E., Patil, S. D., & Neill, S. P. (2022). Hydrokinetic energy conversion: A global riverine perspective. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 14(4), 044501. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0092215
47. Saini, G., Kumar, A., & Saini, R. P. (2021). Assessment of hydrokinetic energy– A case study of eastern Yamuna canal. Materials Today: Proceedings, 46, 5223-5227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.595
48. Saini, G., & Saini, R. P. (2023). Hydrokinetic as an Emerging Technology. Smart Energy and Advancement in Power Technologies, 711-721. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4971-5_52
49. Samadi, A., & Azizian, A. (2021). Investigation of hydromorphological changes of Karaj River due to the implementation of water resources development and river engineering projects. Journal of Hydraulics, 16(1), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.30482/JHYD.2021.265438.1499
50. Saupi, A. F. M., Mailah, N. F., Radzi, M. A. M., Ahmad, S. Z., & Soh, A. C. (2018). Hydrokinetic Energy Assessment in Unregulated River for Hydrokinetic Performance Analysis Studies in East Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201804.0357.v1
51. Schulze, K., Hunger, M., & Döll, P. (2005). Simulating river flow velocity on global scale. Advances in Geosciences, 5, 133-136. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-133-2005
52. Singh, V. (2022). Handbook of Hydraulic Geometry. Cambridge University Press.
53. Sojka, M. (2022). Directions and Extent of Flows Changes in Warta River Basin (Poland) in the Context of the Efficiency of Run-of-River Hydropower Plants and the Perspectives for Their Future Development. Energies, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020439
54. Tahershamsi, A., & Imanshoar, F. (2010). Determination of River Regime Equations Based on Stream Power Equation. Journal of Civil and Surveying Engineering, 44(1). https://jcse.ut.ac.ir/article_20753.html
55. Tahir, M. U. R., Amin, A., Baig, A. A., Manzoor, S., Haq, A., Asgha, M. A., & Khawaja, W. A. G. (2021). Design and optimization of grid Integrated hybrid on-site energy generation system for rural area in AJK-Pakistan using HOMER software. AIMS Energy, 9(6), 1113-1135. https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021051
56. Tan, K. W., Kirke, B., & Anyi, M. (2021). Small-scale hydrokinetic turbines for remote community electrification. Energy for Sustainable Development, 63, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.05.005
57. Tigabu, M. T., Wood, D. H., & Admasu, B. T. (2020). Resource assessment for hydro-kinetic turbines in Ethiopian rivers and irrigation canals. Energy for Sustainable Development, 58, 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.08.005
58. Verzano, K., Bärlund, I., Flörke, M., Lehner, B., Kynast, E., Voß, F., & Alcamo, J. (2012). Modeling variable river flow velocity on continental scale: Current situation and climate change impacts in Europe. Journal of Hydrology, 424, 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.005
59. Vogel, R. M., & Fennessey, N. M. (1995). Flow duration curves II: A review of applications in water resources planning 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 31(6), 1029-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb03419.x
60. Wulf, H., Bookhagen, B., & Scherler, D. (2016). Differentiating between rain, snow, and glacier contributions to river discharge in the western Himalaya using remote-sensing data and distributed hydrological modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 88, 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.12.004
61. Yadav, P. K., Kumar, A., & Jaiswal, S. (2023). A critical review of technologies for harnessing the power from flowing water using a hydrokinetic turbine to fulfill the energy need. Energy Reports, 9, 2102-2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.033
62. Zhu, Y., Tao, S., Sun, J., Wang, X., Li, X., Tsang, D. C., Zhu, L., Shen, G., Huang, H., & Cai, C. (2019). Multimedia modeling of the PAH concentration and distribution in the Yangtze River Delta and human health risk assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 647, 962-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.075