Dorothée Huber

ENSHMG – GHO – 3rd year

February, 2005 – August, 2005

BEDUIN Project

ENSHMG supervisor : Professor P. Foray

NTNU supervisor : Dr. L. Jenssen
Résumé
Dans le cadre de ma troisième année à l’Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Hydraulique et de
Mécanique de Grenoble, j’ai effectué un stage de six mois au Département de Génie Hydraulique et
Environnemental, à NTNU, l’Université de Science et de Technologie de Trondheim, en Norvège.

Lors de mon stage, j’ai participé au projet BEDUIN (BEDre Utforming av INntak,
"amélioration de la conception des prises d’eau"), commandé par NVE (bureau national norvégien de
gestion des ressources en eau et en énergie) et conduit en association avec le Département de Génie
Hydraulique et Environnemental de NTNU. Ce projet a pour but d’écrire un rapport destiné aux
particuliers qui souhaitent construire leur propre micro ou mini centrale hydroélectrique (<10 MW)
dans le but de les informer, les conseiller et les aider dans la conception et le dimensionnement de la
prise d’eau.
En effet, en Norvège, il est relativement courant que des particuliers, le plus souvent des
agriculteurs, possèdent leur propre micro centrale hydroélectrique sur leur terrain. Ils en sont
propriétaires, la gère entièrement et peuvent directement consommer l’électricité qu’ils produisent et
vendre l’excédent lorsqu’il y en a. La construction d’une petite centrale hydroélectrique représente
généralement un investissement très rentable. Cependant, très peu de ces particuliers font appel à un
bureau d’études ou à une entreprise de construction car cela engendrerait des coûts trop importants. Le
plus souvent, ils s’occupent donc eux-mêmes de toutes les phases de la réalisation de leur
centrale hydroélectrique : planification, conception, dimensionnement et construction. Mais cela pose
en général de nombreux problèmes car ces personnes n’ont aucune connaissance particulière en
hydroélectricité et il existe très peu d’ouvrages techniques destinés à des non professionnels. C’est
pour répondre à ce manque que NVE a initié ce projet.

La première phase du projet BEDUIN consistait à établir une liste des problèmes liés aux
prises d’eau des micro centrales hydroélectriques. Une enquête téléphonique a d’abord été menée
auprès de 50 propriétaires de petites centrales, réparties sur 12 des 19 régions de Norvège. Les
problèmes rencontrés ont été répartis dans les catégories suivantes : débris, air, sédiments, glace et
problèmes environnementaux. L’enquête téléphonique a permis de hiérarchiser les problèmes et de
connaître ceux qui sont le plus fréquemment rencontrés.
Des visites ont également été effectuées dans 10 micro centrales afin de voir sur le terrain des
exemples de prises d’eau et de discuter avec les propriétaires des problèmes rencontrés à chaque
stade : lors de la planification et du choix du site, lors de la conception et du dimensionnement, lors de
la mise en opération de la centrale et lors du fonctionnement au quotidien. Cela a permis d’avoir une
idée plus précise des besoins de ceux qui souhaitent développer une petite centrale hydroélectrique et
sur le genre d’informations et de conseils à faire figurer dans le rapport BEDUIN. A la suite de
l’enquête téléphonique et des visites, il est clairement apparu que le problème le plus important est lié
aux débris qui bloquent la grille de la prise d’eau et entraînent des pertes de charge inacceptables pour
la production.
Toujours dans le cadre de cette première phase du projet, une micro centrale a été équipée
d’instruments de mesure (capteurs de pression et thermomètre enregistreur) afin d’évaluer avec
précision le problème des débris occasionnant des pertes de charge et de production. Bien que cette
centrale ait été suivie durant huit mois, il n’y a pour l’instant aucun résultat car les capteurs de
pression ont été endommagés par deux fois à cause du gel.

La deuxième phase du projet consistait à rédiger le rapport BEDUIN qui a pour but de décrire
les procédures de conception et de dimensionnement de différents types de prises d’eau et d’ouvrages
hydrauliques qui leur sont liés. Les sujets suivant ont été traités : vanne de fond, vanne à charnière,
conduite pour évacuation du débit minimum, canal d’amenée, bassin de décantation, barrières
flottantes, choix du site de la prise d’eau, prise d’eau avec grille à effet Coanda, prise d’eau avec

1
conduite perforée, prise d’eau latérale, pertes de charge à travers une grille, vibration des grilles, prise
d’eau de type Tyrolien (également appelé prise du type "en dessous")
Chacun de ces sujets a d’abord été traité sur un plan général, puis la procédure de
dimensionnement a été détaillée étape par étape, incluant les équations, toutes les informations
nécessaires (coefficients empiriques, abaques, etc.), ainsi qu’un exemple numérique. Chaque sujet a
été illustré avec des dessins définissant les différents paramètres utilisés dans les équations. La tache la
plus difficile dans la rédaction du rapport a été de rendre des informations scientifiques accessibles à
tous mais sans trop les simplifier ni perdre en précision.

La troisième et dernière phase du projet BEDUIN a porté sur des essais en laboratoire de
grilles à effet Coanda. Il s’agit de grilles inclinées pour les prises d’eau de centrales hydroélectriques,
dont les barres transversales de forme trapézoïdale sont placées horizontalement, perpendiculaires au
courant. L’"effet Coanda" est la tendance d’un fluide à suivre une surface et a été identifié pour la
première fois par Henri-Marie Coanda, scientifique roumain. Les grilles à effet Coanda sont réputées
pour être "auto-nettoyantes" concernant les débris et pour exclure les sédiments ce qui les rend
particulièrement intéressantes pour les prises d’eau des petites centrales hydroélectriques. Cependant,
les performances d’exclusion de débris et de sédiments n’ont jamais été testées de façon approfondie
et il a par conséquent été décidé de réaliser une série d’essais en laboratoire. Les essais ont été
effectués sur trois grilles à effet Coanda dont l’espacement entre les barres était de 1 mm, 0,5 mm et
0,2 mm, et ont porté sur :
• la capacité (débit dérivé par la grille),
• les performances d’exclusion de sédiment (transport solide),
• les performances d’exclusion d’herbe (pour simuler les débris flottants).
Les essais de capacité ont été réalisés en mesurant dans un premier temps les profils d’eau sur
les grilles neuves, puis ces profils ont été comparés à ceux mesurés à la suite des essais d’exclusion de
sédiments et d’herbe. Comme l’on pouvait s’y attendre, il a été observé que la présence de sédiments
ou d’herbe dans l’eau réduit la capacité des grilles. De plus, la capacité des grilles d’espacement de 0,5
mm et de 0,2 mm a été réduite à la suite des essais d’exclusion de sédiments, à cause de grains bloqués
entre les barres. Lors des essais d’exclusion d’herbe, la capacité des grilles n’était que temporairement
réduite car la majorité des brins d’herbe retenus sur la grille étaient purgés grâce à l’effet "auto-
nettoyant" des grilles.
Les essais d’exclusion des sédiments ont été réalisés en introduisant des sédiments dans l’eau,
en amont de la grille et en collectant les sédiments exclus, à l’aval de la grille. Des essais ont été
menés pour chaque grille avec deux débits différents, 5 l/s et 30 l/s. La performance d’exclusion des
grilles à effet Coanda a été définie comme le pourcentage de la masse de sédiments exclus par rapport
à la masse totale de sédiments introduite en amont de la grille. Les résultats des essais donnent des
performances d’exclusion de sédiment allant de 17 % à 68 %, suivant la grille et le débit.
Les essais d’exclusion d’herbe étaient qualitatifs et consistaient à introduire de l’herbe en
amont de la grille et à observer l’évolution de l’état de la grille. La grille à effet Coanda a prouvé être
"auto-nettoyante" de deux manières. Premièrement, l’herbe ne bloquait pas la grille et la majorité du
débit était dérivé. Deuxièmement, dès qu’on cessait d’introduire de l’herbe, les brins d’herbe qui
étaient bloqués sur la grille étaient "auto-nettoyés" et la grille retrouvait toute sa capacité.

Ce stage a été extrêmement enrichissant car les tâches dont j’ai eu la responsabilité ont été très
variées et mon travail s’est partagé entre des sorties sur le terrain lors des visites de centrales
hydroélectriques, des périodes destinées à la rédaction du rapport BEDUIN et des essais en laboratoire
sur les grilles à effet Coanda. Tout cela m’a permis d’approfondir mes connaissances dans de
nombreux domaines et a notamment été l’occasion d’un premier contact avec le monde de la
recherche qui m’était inconnu jusque-là. Enfin, ce stage au sein du Département de Génie Hydraulique
et Environnemental de NTNU a été particulièrement enrichissant car j’ai eu la chance non seulement
de rencontrer et de travailler avec des norvégiens mais aussi avec des personnes venant du monde
entier et cela m’a permis de découvrir d’autres façons de penser et de travailler.

2
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the entire staff of the Department of Hydraulic and
Environmental Engineering of NTNU for their kindness and their welcome. I would
like to thank in particular:

• Dr. Lars Jenssen, Senior researcher and my supervisor, for his guidance, his
availability, his advices and his constructive criticism,

• Arnstein Johansen, technician at the laboratory of Hydraulics of NTNU, for his

great work during the construction of the test flume and his help during the
tests.

3
Table of contents

RESUME ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
TABLE OF APPENDIXES ..................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 7
1 LISTING OF PRACTICAL INTAKE-RELATED PROBLEMS ................................................................. 8
1.1 TELEPHONE SURVEY...................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 POWER PLANT VISITS ..................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Floating debris ................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Air....................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.3 Sediment ............................................................................................................................................. 10
1.2.4 Ice ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.5 Environmental problems..................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 POWER PLANT MONITORING ........................................................................................................................ 11
2 THE BEDUIN REPORT ................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 THE WRITING OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 CHAPTER ON HYDRAULIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Bottom gated outlet............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Bottom-hinged flap gates.................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Pipe for minimum flow release ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Power canal........................................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.5 Settling basins..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.6 Booms ................................................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.7 Location of the intake ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.8 Perforated pipe intake ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.9 Side intake .......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.10 Head loss through a trash rack ........................................................................................................ 16
2.2.11 Trash rack vibration ......................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.12 Tyrolean intakes ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.12.1 Tyrolean intake with a trash rack ......................................................................................................... 20
2.2.12.2 The collecting channel ........................................................................................................................... 21
3 LABORATORY TESTING OF COANDA EFFECT SCREENS ............................................................... 24
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COANDA EFFECT SCREEN ........................................................................... 24
3.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Experimental apparatus ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Capacity tests...................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.3 Sediment exclusion tests ..................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.3.1 Sediment properties ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.3.2 Sediment feeding...................................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.3.3 Measurement methods for the sediment exclusion tests.................................................................... 32
3.2.4 Grass exclusion tests .......................................................................................................................... 33
3.3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.1 Capacity tests...................................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.1.1 Capacity of the new screens................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.1.2 Capacity change after sediment tests.................................................................................................... 34
3.3.1.3 Capacity change after grass tests .......................................................................................................... 35
3.3.2 Sediment exclusion tests ..................................................................................................................... 36

4
 3.3.3 Grass exclusion tests .......................................................................................................................... 37
3.4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................. 39
3.4.1 Capacity tests...................................................................................................................................... 39
3.4.2 Sediment exclusion tests ..................................................................................................................... 40
3.4.3 Grass exclusion tests .......................................................................................................................... 41
3.5 CONCLUSION ON LABORATORY TESTING OF COANDA EFFECT SCREENS ...................................................... 41
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................... 42
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIXES .......................................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5
Table of illustrations
Figures
Figure 1 – Map of Norway...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2 – Definition sketch for head loss through trash racks ...................................... 16
Figure 3 – Definition sketch of the Tyrolean intake with a trash rack............................ 19
Figure 4 – Definition sketch of the Tyrolean intake with a perforated plate ................. 19
Figure 5 – Contraction coefficient, m.................................................................................. 21
Figure 6 – Definition sketch for the collecting channel .................................................... 23
Figure 7 – Schematic of Coanda effect screen (Dulas Ltd)............................................ 25
Figure 8 – Drawing of the Coanda effect screen (Dulas Ltd) ......................................... 26
Figure 9 – Plan of the testing flume and the settling basin ............................................. 27
Figure 10 – Side view of the testing flume and the settling basin.................................. 28
Figure 11 – Graduated ruler for screen and flow profiles measurements.................... 29
Figure 12 – Sieving curves of sands used for the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture
screens tests ..................................................................................................... 31
Figure 13 – Sieving curve of sand used for the 0.2 mm aperture screen tests ........... 31
Figure 14 – Evolution of the sediment layer during test 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed ............. 36
Figure 15 – 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screen clogged after sediment tests ............ 36
Figure 16 – Self-cleaning of the screen at 30 l/s during test 1 mm – 30-40 l/s –
grass ................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 17 – Evolution of grass accumulation on the screen at 10 l/s during
test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass ............................................................................... 38

Tables
Table 1 – Problems at intakes (Lund 2005). ....................................................................... 8
Table 2 – List of power plants and encountered problems ............................................. 10
Table 3 – Reduction factor for the inclination of the rack................................................ 20
Table 4 – Inaccuracy of the EMV........................................................................................ 29
Table 5 – Sediment exclusion tests.................................................................................... 30
Table 6 – Grass exclusion tests .......................................................................................... 33
Table 7 – Percentage of the horizontal screen length needed to divert the flow ........ 34
Table 8 – Change in capacity after sediment tests .......................................................... 35
Table 9 – Change in capacity after grass tests ................................................................ 35
Table 10 – Exclusion efficiency for sediment exclusion tests ........................................ 37

6
Introduction

As part of my third and final year of study at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure
d’Hydraulique et de Mécanique de Grenoble (the Higher Institute for Hydraulic and
Mechanical Engineering of Grenoble, France), I did a six-month training period at the
Institutt for Vann – og Miljøteknikk (the Department of Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering), at NTNU (the Norwegian University of Science and Technology), in
Trondheim, Norway.

I worked on the BEDUIN project (BEDre Utforming av INntak, “better design of

intakes”) which was commissioned by NVE (Norges Vassdrags– og Energidirektorat)
to the Institutt for Vann – og Miljøteknikk. NVE is the Norwegian Water Resources
and Energy Directorate which is responsible for the management of Norway’s water
and energy resources. The purpose of the BEDUIN project is to write a report on
small hydropower plant intakes, giving information and advice to help private
individuals who wish to develop their own small hydropower plant.

Indeed, in Norway it is relatively common that private individuals, mostly

farmers, build a micro or small hydropower plant on their land. The owners can
directly use the electricity that they produce and sell it to the grid if they have any
surplus. It is a very good investment; however they usually cannot afford to hire a
consulting company for the planning and design, and a construction company for
building the power plant. In consequence, they do as much as possible themselves
to lower the costs. The planning and design parts pose some problems as those
people have no, or limited knowledge in hydropower and there is no literature on the
topic aimed at non professionals. That’s why NVE has decided to cope with this lack
of information by commissioning the BEDUIN project.

This report comprises three parts. Firstly it describes practical intake-related

problems encountered by people who develop small hydropower plants. Secondly it
deals with the BEDUIN report and the difficulties related to its writing. Finally it
presents the results of a series of laboratory tests of Coanda effect screens which
are self-cleaning static inclined intake screens for hydropower plants. The tests
concerned the capacity of the screens, and the sediment and grass exclusion
efficiency.

7
1 Listing of practical intake-related problems
The first part of the BEDUIN project consisted in listing practical intake-related
problems encountered by people who develop small hydropower plants. It comprised
three stages: a telephone survey, power plant visits and the monitoring of a power
plant. The possible problems that could be encountered at intakes were divided into
the following categories:
• Floating debris
• Air
• Sediment
• Ice
• Environmental problems

1.1 Telephone survey

The telephone survey was carried out by Steinar Lund (2005), a Norwegian
Master student, among 50 hydropower plant owners whose power plants were
located in 12 of the 19 Regions of Norway.

Table 1 presents the results from the telephone survey and gives the number
of power plants which encountered problems for each category. The numbers in
brackets represents power plants where the problems have been solved.

Categories of Number of
Types of problems
problems intakes
Leaves, turf, twigs, branches 19
Floating debris
Other problems 2
Vortex formation, air entrainment 4 + (1)
Air
Air in pipe (1)
Sediments in the intake pond 10 + (1)
Sediment
Wear on the turbine 2
Frazil ice blocking the entrance to the 4
reservoir
Frazil ice blocking the trash rack 3
Ice formation in the penstock 3
Ice Breaking-up of ice blocking the trash rack 1
Breaking-up of ice leading to damage 1
Ice problem in the spillway area 1
Freezing of the gate 1
Other problems or unspecified 4
Environmental None 0
Table 1 – Problems at intakes (Lund 2005).

Frazil ice is ice crystals formed in supercooled water which is water that is
below 0°C and which has usually been cooled by sub-freezing air. A supercooling of

8
just a tenth of a degree Celsius or so is sufficient to produce frazil ice. The main
problem with frazil ice is that it sticks to the metal bars of the trash rack and blocks it.
Breaking-up of ice is when the ice-cover breaks and is entrained by the river flow.

1.2 Power plant visits

Lars Jenssen, BEDUIN project’s coordinator, Steinar Lund and I have visited
10 power plants from the 50 of the telephone survey. One power plant was located in
the Sør-Trøndelag Region and nine were in the Sogn og Fjordane Region (see
Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Map of Norway

The power plants were either owned by one or a group of private individuals,
or owned by a cooperative. Most of the owners were farmers who have planned,
designed and built their power plant themselves. Because of the cost, very few
owners hired a consulting company.
For each power plant, we have discussed with the owners about the problems
related to the choice of the site, the planning, the design, the construction, the
operation of the power plant and the energy production. It gave us a better idea
about the kind of information and advice they would have needed and that should be
included in the BEDUIN report. Table 2 presents the list of the power plants that we
visited and the problems that they encountered at the intake, which are marked “X”.
Problems that have been solved are marked “(X)”. General data on each power plant
in given in appendix 1 and a detailed description of the intake for each power plant
and their problems is presented in appendix 2.

9
 Power plant Categories of problems
N° Name Floating debris Air Sediments Ice Environmental
1 Glisja X
2 Glomnes X X
3 Jon Aaning X X
4 Vasstaket No problem
5 Utvik E-verk (X)
6 Utigardselva Was just finished
7 Hugla X
8 Joka Under construction
9 Marifjøra (X) (X)
10 Gjeisdøla Under construction
Table 2 – List of power plants and encountered problems

1.2.1 Floating debris

Floating debris is the most common problem at intakes (see appendixes 2.1,
2.2 and 2.3.). Usually, the trash rack gets clogged with debris resulting in increased
head loss. The problem is most serious during the autumn when the leaves fall from
trees and in some cases it can lead to the total blockage of the intake, keeping water
from being diverted. The only solution to keep the head loss low and the power plant
running is to clean the trash rack as often as needed. The cleaning frequency varies
a lot from one intake to another. It can get as frequent as several cleaning per day
during the worst period.

1.2.2 Air

There was no air problem at the intakes of the power plants which we visited.
Air is not a widespread problem and when it occurs, the problem is often due to a
vortex which forms at the water surface and goes down in the penstock through the
trash rack. If the vortex is very developed, it may entrain air and debris into the
intake.

1.2.3 Sediment

Sediment can be anything from big rock to stones, clay and silt. The problem
caused by sediments (see appendix 2.2) is usually that the intake reservoir gets filled
up with sediments. It is possible to remove the sediments at regular intervals with a
mechanical digger, but it is feasible only when the reservoir is small enough and has
a road access. In addition it can be quite expensive and it is not a long term solution.
The turbine can also get worn out by sediment and has to be changed. A problem
with small hydropower plants is that service control is not always very well and
regularly done. In consequence the owner may not be aware of wear on the turbine.

10
1.2.4 Ice

As shown in Table 1, there are many problems related to ice. At the intakes of
the power plants which we visited, there were some problems due to frazil ice
formation downstream of a water fall (see appendix 2.7), problems due to the
freezing of the intake (see appendix 2.3), and some problems (which have been
solved) due to ice blocking the intake (see appendix 2.9).

1.2.5 Environmental problems

There was no environmental problem at the intakes of the power plants which
we visited.

1.3 Power plant monitoring

In order to quantify the floating debris problem at intakes in terms of head loss
and loss of power production, Fossum power plant was monitored for 8 months.
Head measurements were done with some pressure transducers placed at the intake
and on the penstock. A temperature logger was also placed in the water at the
intake. The temperature and pressure data were automatically recorded every 30
min. In addition, a video camera filmed the intake pond, ½ a second every hour, in
order to know the conditions at the intake. However, after 8 months, there was no
result as several problems occurred.

Firstly, a pressure transducer was installed in the intake house in December

and checked for the first time in February. During that period, there were several very
cold days (below -14°C) and although it was well submerged, the sensor cells most
probably froze 18 days after it was installed. The data which were recorded after that
event were not consistent and therefore useless. In February, the pressure
transducer was replaced but the same happened again after 11 days. The next visit
was in April and the transducer was replaced once more. Since then there was no
other visit and the condition of the sensor cell is unknown but it is unlikely that it has
frozen since April. In consequence, the next visit should provide some data if nothing
else happened to the pressure transducer. Another pressure transducer was placed
on the penstock in February and checked in April. It was isolated by a thick snow
cover and it did not seem to have frozen.

Secondly, only few data were available from the video camera. It was
connected to the main grid for power supply but at the first power failure, the settings
were erased and the video camera stopped recording. In addition, as the video
camera is placed now, the intake trash rack is not in the field of vision of the camera,
which should be placed on the other bank of the river. Then it poses the problem of
power supply. To solve both power supply problems, the video camera should be
equipped with a long-life battery and visits should be more frequent to check the
battery and reload it when necessary.

11
2 The BEDUIN report
The second part of the BEDUIN project consisted in writing a practical
handbook which must describe the procedure for hydraulic design of different intake
types, and give the equations and other background data that are necessary for the
design.

2.1 The writing of the report

The BEDUIN report consisted of many chapters which gave general advices
and which described the different intake types, the different intake hydraulic
components and their function, and possible problems encountered at intakes. My
task within the writing of the report was to write (in English but to be later translated
into Norwegian) the chapters concerning the hydraulic design of the following topics:
• Bottom gated outlet
• Bottom-hinged flap gates
• Pipe for minimum flow release
• Power canal
• Settling basin
• Booms
• Location of the intake
• Coanda effect screen intake
• Perforated pipe intake
• Side intake
• Head loss through a trash rack
• Trash rack vibration
• Tyrolean intake

For each topic, some general information was given first. Then the step by
step design procedure was detailed and followed by a numerical example. Drawings
were used to illustrate and define the different parameters of the equations.

The most difficult part in writing the report was to present and explain design
procedures and equations to people who do not have the necessary scientific
background to understand them as they are found in the literature. After a literature
review, my job consisted in summarizing the information and writing it in the simplest
possible way so that it could be understood by everyone. When it was possible,
equations were also presented as abacus for a simpler use. The purpose of the
numerical example was to show people how to use the procedures and the
equations.

12
2.2 Chapter on Hydraulic design

This part is a summary of the chapter on Hydraulic design of the BEDUIN

report. The different aspects discussed in the report on each topic are mentioned and
there is also a brief description of problems which I had to deal with. Equations or
design criteria are not included in this summary. However to give examples of my
work, two parts of the chapter on the Tyrolean intake are presented in details as they
were in the BEDUIN report (see chapter 2.2.12).

2.2.1 Bottom gated outlet

In the literature, there were several different approaches and equations for
computing the discharge through a gate. They all included a discharge coefficient
and/or a contraction coefficient which posed the problem to provide relevant values
for them. A chart from US National Highway Institute on flow through culverts was
used to compare the different equations. The chart was produced after series of
laboratory testing and relates the opening of the gate, to the ratio “discharge to width
of the gate” and the ratio “head water depth to opening of the gate”.
Another problem was that in all equations the velocity head is needed to
compute the discharge. In consequence, the discharge should be computed by
iteration which is too complicated for the people who the handbook is aimed at. It
was decided that the velocity head could be neglected as it would not affect very
much the accuracy of the results.
The handbook starts by giving some background information on the different
flow situations through a bottom gated outlet. Then it presents two equations with
relevant coefficients and the chart from the US National Highway Institute to compute
the discharge for two flow situations: free surface flow through the gate and
submerged gate.

2.2.2 Bottom-hinged flap gates

The purpose of the handbook was also to give an overview of different

possible solutions and designs. Bottom-hinged flap gates can be an alternative to
overflow spillway. First a description of bottom-hinged flap gates, their use and the
way they operates are discussed in the handbook. Then the equation for stage-
discharge relationship is given with some relevant discharge coefficients depending
on the opening of the gate. Bottom-hinged flap gate is a complex piece of equipment
which will certainly not be constructed by the power plant owner himself. However it
was important to discuss the hydraulics of the gate in order to enable the owner to
decide if a bottom-hinged flap gate is a good solution for his power plant or not.

2.2.3 Pipe for minimum flow release

In Norway if a river flow is diverted to a power plant by a dam, it must release

a minimum flow downstream of the dam. In small hydropower plants, it is often done
with a pipe through the dam. The handbook gives the equations to compute the
discharge through a pipe, considering the head difference, the pipe geometry and

13
friction. Head loss coefficients are given for several inlet geometries, for bends,
contractions, or expansions in the pipe and for cases with a gate. Several Manning’s
coefficients are provided for computing the friction losses.

2.2.4 Power canal

The chapter of the handbook on power canal deals with the following topics:

• Minimum and maximum permissible velocities in the canal as function of the

canal material;
• Side slopes of the canal as function of the canal material and cross section;
• Dimensions of the most efficient cross sections expressed as function of the
hydraulic radius;
• Manning’s coefficient as function of the canal material;
• Equations to size the canal.

2.2.5 Settling basins

The purpose of the chapter of the handbook on settling basins was to inform
about important design rules and to give basic knowledge to understand the
principles that make a settling basin efficient.

The following design rules were discussed:

• The dimensions of the settling basin must be large enough to cause settling of
the sediments but no so large that the basin is over-expensive and bulky.
• Sufficient capacity must be allowed for collection of sediments.
• The settling basin must allow easy flushing out of deposits, undertaken at
sufficient frequent intervals.
• Water removed from the flushing exit must be led carefully away from the
installation. This avoids erosion of the soil surrounding and supporting the
basin and penstock foundations. A walled and paved surface similar to a
spillway drain will meet these requirements.
• The settling basin must avoid flow turbulence caused by introduction of sharp
area changes or bends, and it must avoid flow separation. Tapering of the
entrance and exit of the settling basin are very important.

Then the emphasis was put on the settling velocity of particles, on the
efficiency of a settling basin and on the practical problem of flushing out the
sediments. The problem of flushing is very important since it means a loss of water
and sometimes the need to shut down the power plant. Several designs of rapid
emptying basins and a self-cleaning settling basin design are given as examples.

14
2.2.6 Booms

Booms can be used to guide or deflect debris away from the hydropower plant
intake. Their need is to assist in preventing trash and ice from accumulating on and
blocking intake trash racks. In case of big flood, they also prevent the trash rack from
structural damage. They can be a rather cheap solution to floating debris problems
for small hydropower plants.

In the handbook, the following aspects were discussed:

• The boom material to give an overview of what is available and the
advantages and the drawbacks of each material;
• The boom location with respect to the distance from the intake and the angle
to the direction of the flow;
• The boom design and geometry with respect to the surface velocity and the
angle of deflection;
• The tension in the boom depending on the different forces acting on the boom.

2.2.7 Location of the intake

The aim of this chapter in the handbook was to point out problems that may
occur if the location of the intake is not carefully chosen and to give advices in order
to avoid common problems. The following topics were discussed:
• The drying out of the intake, with respect to the possible erosion and lowering
of the streambed if there is no weir and big water level fluctuation between
high and low flow seasons;
• The choice of the intake site when there is a bend in the river stretch with
respect to silt and sediment deposits in front of the intake;
• The location of the intake to the weir for side intakes in order to allow sediment
and debris to build up downstream of the mouth without blocking the intake;
• The use of natural features along the river in order to protect the intake from
damage by debris during floods. For example, it can be achieved by placing
the intake behind permanent boulders or outcrop of bed rock.

2.2.8 Perforated pipe intake

One result of the telephone survey and power plant visits was that some
owners use a perforated pipe as intake to their hydropower plant. The perforated
pipe which acts as a trash rack is often an extension of the penstock in which holes
are drilled. This intake design is not a good choice because of high head loss, the
difficulty to clean the pipe when it is clogged by trash and the fact that it can get
easily covered by sand and sediments if the pipe is just laid on the ground. However
it had to be discussed in the handbook since it is cheap and easy to build and some
people prefer it to other solutions.
The handbook gives the equations to compute the number of holes to be
drilled and the length of the pipe which is needed, based on the discharge and the
acceptable head loss through the perforated pipe and the holes pattern.

15
2.2.9 Side intake

The chapter on side intakes of the handbook deals with the head loss through
the intake. In a side intake the losses have several components:
• The head loss due to the change of direction of the flow;
• The head loss through the trash rack;
• The head loss due to the change of cross section.

In the handbook, the head losses through the trash rack and due to the
change of cross section were discussed in a separate chapter. Therefore only
equations for computing the loss due to the change of direction of the flow are given.

2.2.10 Head loss through a trash rack

The handbook provides three formulas to compute the head loss through a
trash rack: Kirschmer’s (1926), Idelchik’s (1979) and Meusburger’s (2002) formulas.

4/3
⎛t⎞
2
V
Kirschmer’s formula: ΔH = k F ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ R ⋅ sin α
⎝b⎠ 2g
Where ΔH: head loss (m)
kF: rack bar shape factor (can be found in Kirschmer, 1926)
t: thickness of racks bars (mm)
b: spacing (clearance) between bars (mm)
VR: approach velocity (m/s)
g: acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
α: angle of bars with the horizontal (degrees)
ΔH, t, b and α are defined on Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Definition sketch for head loss through trash racks

Kirschmer’s formula is the most well-known formula for computing head loss through
a trash rack. But after a literature review, it appeared that this formula is somehow
limited as to when it applies and that more accurate formulas have been written
since. Indeed Kirschmer’s formula applies only to intakes where the flow runs
perpendicular through the trash rack. An oblique flow coefficient, kδ, was later
introduced by Mosonyi (1966) into Kirschmer’s formula in order to take the oblique
flow angle into account.

16
 4/3
⎛t⎞
2
VR
Kirschmer-Mosonyi formula is: ΔH = k F ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⋅ sin α ⋅ kδ
⎝b⎠ 2g
.
The oblique flow coefficient depends on the oblique flow angle, δ (see Figure 2) and
the ratio t .
b
However Mosonyi provides values for the oblique flow coefficient only for one trash
rack bar geometry: rectangular bars with 50 mm × 10 mm cross section.

VR2
Idelchik’s formula: ΔH = σ 1 ⋅ σ 2 ⋅ sin α ⋅
2g
WhereΔH: head loss (m)
σ1: coefficient
σ2: coefficient
α: angle of bars with the horizontal (degrees)
VR: approach velocity (m/s)
g: acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

σ1 and σ2 are found in Idelchik, 1979. Coefficient σ1 depends on the oblique flow
angle δ and on the bar shape. Coefficient σ2 depends on the oblique flow angle δ and
b
on the ratio .
t +b

VR2
Meusburger’s formula: ΔH = k P ⋅ kδ ⋅ k v ⋅ kα ⋅
2g
WhereΔH: head loss (m)
kP: Head loss coefficient due to structural blockage of the rack
kδ: Head loss coefficient due to oblique flow
kv: head loss coefficient due to trash blockage
kα: Head loss coefficient due to the inclination of the rack
VR: approach average velocity (m/s)
g: acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

All head loss coefficients can be found in Meusburger, 2002.

Meusburger’s formula is much more accurate and takes many more parameters into
account than the previous formulas.
The head loss coefficient due to structural blockage of the rack takes into account the
trash rack bars shape and the area blocked by the trash rack structure (the bars and
the transversal stiffeners of the rack).
The head loss coefficient due to oblique flow takes into account the oblique flow
angle and the area blocked by the trash rack structure.
The head loss coefficient due to trash blockage takes into account the area blocked
by the trash rack structure, the area blocked by trash and the location of where the
trash will accumulate on the rack (i.e. which part(s) of the rack will be blocked by
trash).

17
The greatest improvement thanks to Meusburger’s formula is that trash blockage of
the rack is taken into account. It poses the problem to estimate the amount of trash
and the part(s) of the rack which are blocked, but it gives a better accuracy of the
head loss through the trash rack. Indeed a power plant seldom runs with a perfectly
clean trash rack.

Conclusion on head loss formulas:

The choice of the formula to compute the head loss must be decided according to the
use of the results. Kirschmer’s formula is the most simple of the three and gives a
good estimation of the head loss. Idelchik’s formula applies to clean trash racks with
oblique flow. Meusburger’s formula is the most accurate and applies to any
situations.

2.2.11 Trash rack vibration

Unless resonance is avoided, the bars may fail due to fatigue. That’s why
trash rack vibration can lead to disastrous consequences for a power plant. The
handbook provides the equations to check if the resonant condition is avoided or not.
To avoid the resonant condition, the trash rack should be dimensioned so that (Sell,
f
1971): n ≥ 2,5 , with fn, the natural frequency of the trash rack and ff, the forced
ff
S ⋅ V0
frequency. The forced frequency is defined by: f f = ,
t
where S: Strouhal Number
V0: velocity through the rack (m/s)
t: thickness of the bar (m)

The main problem encountered in the writing of this chapter was to give
relevant values for the Strouhal Number, S.
S is a function of the spacing between the bars and the shape of the bars. If
b
the ratio of bar spacing to bar thickness is greater than five ( ≥ 5 ), then it is only a
t
function of the shape of the bar and it can be found in the literature for several bar
shapes.
b
Then remains the problem of Strouhal Number values when ≤ 5 . In the
t
literature, values of Strouhal Number can be found as function of the bars spacing
3D

only for the following bar shape (Lévin, 1957): D

It seems that little is known about Strouhal Numbers for trash rack and that
little testing has been done in laboratory.

18
2.2.12 Tyrolean intakes

Tyrolean intakes are particularly used to divert mountain streams with steep
longitudinal slope, supercritical flow regime and in which the transport capacity is
great.

The report deals with the collecting channel and with two alternatives for the
Tyrolean intake: one with a trash rack (see Figure 3) and one with a perforated plate
(see Figure 4).
Below are the procedures for designing a Tyrolean intake with a trash rack
and the collecting channel as they were in the BEDUIN report. The procedure for the
Tyrolean intake with a perforated plate and the numerical examples are not included
here.

Figure 3 – Definition sketch of the Tyrolean intake with a trash rack

Figure 4 – Definition sketch of the Tyrolean intake with a perforated plate

19
2.2.12.1 Tyrolean intake with a trash rack

The following parameters must be known to design the intake:

• Diverted discharge to the turbine, Q
• Intake’s width across the river, B (m)
• Inclination of the rack, α (º)
• Spacing between the rack bars, e (m)
• Bar’s cross section

There are several methods to compute the capacity of a Tyrolean intake, and here is
presented only the method proposed by Frank (1959). The method is based on
theoretical considerations but it was tested for intakes with rectangular bars, with
α = 0° and α = 11° , and for construction ratio of 16 %, 22 % and 28 %, with good
result.

The construction ratio, ψ, is computed with the spacing between the rack bars, e, and
the distance between the middle of two bars, a:
e
ψ =
a
Then the unit discharge is computed:
q= Q
B,
and the upstream critical depth, hc, with:
q2
hc = 3
g
The reduction factor, x, which depends on the inclination of the rack, α, is computed
from the following expression or is found in Table 3.
2 ⋅ cos α ⋅ x 3 − 3 ⋅ x 2 + 1 = 0

α= 0º 2º 4º 6º 8º 10 º 12 º
x= 1,000 0,980 0,961 0,944 0,927 0,910 0,894

α= 14 º 16 º 18 º 20 º 22 º 24 º 26 º
x= 0,879 0,865 0,851 0,837 0,825 0,812 0,800
Table 3 – Reduction factor for the inclination of the rack
The water depth, h, upstream of the rack, is computed by multiplying the upstream
critical depth, hc, to the reduction factor, x:
h = x ⋅ hc
Then the contraction coefficient, m, is given in Figure 5 or computed with the
following formula:
0 ,13
−0 ,16 ⎛a⎞
m = 0.8052 ⋅ψ ⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝h⎠

The discharge coefficient, λ, is computed from:

λ = ψ ⋅ m ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ cos α

20
The minimum length of the trash rack in the direction of the flow, l, which is needed to
divert the discharge, is computed from:
q
l = 2,561 ⋅
λ⋅ h
In order to take into consideration the fact that the rack can get clogged by debris,
the length must be increased by a safety factor, c. The value of the safety factor
varies but it should be between 1,1 < c < 1,5. The length, L, of the trash rack is then:
L = l ⋅c

1,2
ψ = 0,1
1,1 ψ = 0,15
ψ = 0,2
ψ = 0,25
1
Contraction coefficient, m

ψ = 0,3
ψ = 0,4
0,9 ψ = 0,5
ψ = 0,6
ψ = 0,7
ψ = 0,8
0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
a/h

Figure 5 – Contraction coefficient, m

2.2.12.2 The collecting channel

Under the trash rack or the perforated plate is a channel which leads the water out, to
a settling basin and the penstock for example. The collecting channel must have
sufficient capacity to transport the diverted water. Below are described two
calculation methods but one must be aware that the mixing of air into the diverted
water is not taken into consideration. When water falls down into the collecting
channel, it gets mixed with a lot of air and the mixture takes more room than just
water.

The length and the width of the channel are usually defined by the size of the trash
rack or of the perforated plate, and if the water depth at the downstream end of the
channel is known, then the water level can be computed toward upstream. The
energy balance in the longitudinal direction gives the following (Chow, 1973):
dy S o − S f − gA2
2 Qq

= 2
dx 1 − gAQ2 y
where (see Figure 6, left):
dx = change of water depth, y, in the longitudinal direction of the channel, x
dy

So = bed slope (-)

Sf = energy line, computed with Manning’s formula (-)
Q = discharge in the section of the channel, which is considered (m3/s)

21
q = change in unit discharge (m3/s/m)
y = water depth in the considered section (m)
g = 9,81 m/s2

Usually the collecting channels are so short that the friction can be assumed to be nil,
i.e. Sf = 0, and the equation is solved step by step.

A simpler calculation method is based on the assumption that the velocity in the
channel is (Frank, 1956):
V x = ax m
where:
Vx = water velocity at the distance x from the upstream end of the channel, (m/s)
x = distance from the upstream end (m)
a, m = coefficients (-)

The water depth in a section (see Figure 6, right) is computed from:

y x = y u ( Lx )
1− m

where:
yx = water depth at the distance x from the upstream end of the channel (m)
yu = water depth at the downstream end of the channel (m)
x = distance from the upstream end (m)
L = distance from the upstream to the downstream end of the channel (m)

The depth from the water elevation at the upstream end of the channel to the water
surface is:
2m
Vu2 m + 1 ⎛ x ⎞
yx '= ⋅ ⋅⎜ ⎟
2g m ⎝L⎠
where:
yx’ = depth between the water surface and the water elevation at the upstream end of
the channel (m)
Vu = velocity at the outlet of the channel (i.e. where x = L) (m/s)
m = coefficient (-), see below

The velocity in the collecting channel varies with the distance, x, and is computed
from:
V x = Vu ( Lx )
m

The computations assume that the collecting channel has the same width over the
length, that the unit discharge through the rack or perforated plate, q, is constant over
the channel length, and that the flow is subcritical. The formulas apply only to the
channel under the rack or the perforated plate, and not downstream of that. The
starting point is that the velocity, Vu, and water depth, yu, must be known at the
downstream end of the channel. Then the coefficient a disappears. Coefficient m
which must be between 0.1 and 1.0 decides the way the velocity varies over the
channel length. When m = 1, the velocity varies linearly from 0 at the upstream end
of the channel to Vu at the downstream end. When m is small, the velocity increases
quickly at the upstream end and less at the downstream end. High velocity can be
essential to avoid sediments that passed through the rack, to settle in the channel

22
which is most problematic at the upstream end where there is little water. However,
increasing the velocity means increasing the slope which also means lost head for
the energy production.

Figure 6 – Definition sketch for the collecting channel

23
3 Laboratory testing of Coanda effect screens
The Coanda effect screen is a static inclined intake screen with horizontal
wedge-wires for hydropower plants. It is said to be self-cleaning concerning debris
and to have a desilting function. However its efficiency concerning sediment and
trash exclusion has never been tested in a laboratory.
So far, sediment exclusion tests have only been carried out at two power plant
sites: at a pilot project site in Switzerland (ENTEC AG, 1998) and at a small
hydropower plant near Keswick in Cumbria, UK (Howarth, 2001). The results of the
tests in UK gave 50% exclusion of particles between 0.41 and 1.17 mm at low flows
(no by-pass flow) and 94 % exclusion for the same particle range at higher flows for a
1 mm aperture screen. The method consisted in feeding sediments to the screen and
collecting the sediments which passed through the screen with a fine muslin sheet.
The results of the tests in Switzerland were that 94% of the particles between 0.5 mm
and 1 mm were excluded for a 1 mm aperture screen. However the paper does not
describe the method used to get those results. Neither of the two power plants has
reported problems related to trash blockage of the screen during the time they were
monitored.

As it was said in chapter 1 of this report, the clogging of the intake by trash
and the wearing out of the turbines by sediments are very common problems at small
hydropower plant intakes. Due to its possible abilities concerning sediment and trash
handling, the Coanda effect screen was of great interest to the BEDUIN project, and
because of the lack of information on the sediment and trash exclusion efficiency, it
was decided to carry out a series of laboratory testing, as the third part of the
BEDUIN project.
The objective of the tests was to evaluate the capacity of the Coanda effect
screen and its efficiency in excluding sediment and trash.

3.1 General description of the Coanda effect screen

The “Coanda effect” is named after Henri-Marie Coanda, a Romanian

scientist, who first identified the effect in 1910, and involves the tendency of fluids to
follow a surface.
The basic principle of the Coanda effect screen operation is shown in Figure 7.
The screen is installed on the downstream face of an overflow weir. Flow passes
over the crest of the weir, across a solid acceleration plate, and then across the
screen panel, which is constructed of wedge-wire with the wires oriented horizontally,
perpendicular to the flow across the screen. As the flow passes over this surface, the
shearing action of the bars combined with the Coanda effect, separates the flow.
Clean water passes down through the screen, while the water containing fish,
sediment and debris passes over the screen to rejoin the water course below the
weir. According to the manufacturer, the screen is self-cleaning, it can operate
without any external intervention to remove debris from the screen, and has a
desilting function and excludes most of the particles whose diameter is above half of
the aperture size of the screen.
The main drawback of this type of intake is the head loss due to the layout.
Full height screens are 1.2 m high and 0.7 m high screens are also available.

24
 Figure 7 – Schematic of Coanda effect screen (Dulas Ltd)

3.2 Experimental setup

3.2.1 Experimental apparatus

COANDA EFFECT SCREEN

Three Coanda effect screens were tested. They were supplied by Dulas Ltd 1 ,
and they were identical, except for the aperture size between the wires of the
screens. The screens were 0.45 m wide, 0.705 m high and 0.975 m long, and the
aperture sizes of the three screens were 1 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm. A drawing of
the screen is shown in Figure 8.

According to Dulas Ltd (2005a, 2005b), the capacity of the 1 mm aperture

screen is 30 l/s, it removes most of the particles above 0.5 mm and it is self-cleaning
concerning debris.

1
Dulas Ltd, Dyfi Eco Park, Machynlleth, SY20 8AX, Wales, UK

25
 Figure 8 – Drawing of the Coanda effect screen (Dulas Ltd)

THE FLUME

Drawings of the flume are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. It was 0.45 m
wide, 1.5 m high and 3 m long. A filter ( on the drawings) was placed between the
water supply pipe and the Coanda effect screen in order to smooth the water flow.
The feeding of the sediment or of the grass was done on the horizontal plate ( ). The
collecting channel was the area located under the screen. Downstream the screen
was a chamber to collect the by-pass flow, and sediment and grass that have been
excluded by the screen. Two pipes connected the collecting channel and the
chamber to the settling basin.

THE SETTLING BASIN

Drawings of the settling basin are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. It was
divided in two parts: one part ( ) was for settling the diverted flow and the other part
( ) was for settling the by-pass flow. At the outlet of the diverted water pipe, there
were two semi-circular metallic perforated plates with a plastic mesh in between that
acted as turbulence dampener. At the outlet of the by-pass water pipe, there was a
semi-circular metallic perforated plate that acted as turbulence dampener. Some very
fine nets were placed upstream the spillways at the outlet of the settling basin in
order to hold the grass back but they are not shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10.

26
Figure 9 – Plan of the testing flume and the settling basin

27
Figure 10 – Side view of the testing flume and the settling basin

28
FLOW-METERS

Two EMV (Electro Magnetic Velocimeter) were used to measure the flow. One
was placed on the water supply pipe and the other was placed on the by-pass flow
pipe. The accuracy of the flow-meters depend on the velocity of the water in the pipe
and the higher the velocity, the greater the accuracy. The inaccuracy of the EMV is
given in Table 4 for the minimum and maximum flows for each EMV.

EMV on the water EMV on the

supply pipe by-pass pipe
Q (l/s) 5 50 1.75 26.3
Velocity (m/s) 0.16 1.6 0.1 1.49
Inaccuracy in % of the real flow (%) ± 1.75 ± 0.5 ± 2.5 ± 0.5
Table 4 – Inaccuracy of the EMV

3.2.2 Capacity tests

The screen and flow profiles were measured with a graduated ruler that could
be raised and lowered to any elevation, and which was mounted on a plate that could
be moved over the length of the screen (see Figure 11). The elevation reference
point (elevation 0 point) for each screen was set to be the elevation of the flat area
upstream of the acceleration plate. Measurements were done every 4 cm in the
horizontal direction over the length of the screen and every cm at the end of the flow
profiles, when there was almost no more water on the screen.

Figure 11 – Graduated ruler for screen and flow profiles measurements.

For each screen, the screen profile and the flow profiles for 10 l/s, 30 l/s and
50 l/s were measured. New flow profiles were measured after grass exclusion tests 1
mm – 10 l/s – grass and 1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass (see Table 6) and after sediment
exclusion tests 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed, 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed, 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed, 0.2 mm
– 5 l/s – sed and 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed (see Table 5).

There is no flow profile for discharge above 50 l/s because the capacity of the
collecting channel was limited and its water level was higher than the lower elevation
of the screen. In consequence, water was spilling out of the screen and it was not
possible to measure the flow profile.

29
3.2.3 Sediment exclusion tests

Sediment exclusion tests were carried out for each screen at two different
discharges in order to determine the sediment exclusion efficiency of the screens and
the influence of the discharge. Table 5 presents the sediment exclusion tests that
have been carried out.

Aperture Mass of Duration

Flow Feeding method
Test size sediment of test
(l/s) (see chapter 2.3.2)
(mm) (kg) (min)
1 mm – 5 l/s – sed 1 5 20 70 A
1 mm – 30 l/s – sed 1 30 20 15 B
0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.5 5 20 19 B
0.5 mm – 30 l/s – sed 0.5 30 20 12 B
0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.2 5 20 18 B
0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed 0.2 30 5 0.5 C
Table 5 – Sediment exclusion tests

Comments:
Test 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed: Two ribs were placed across the flow upstream of the
sediment feeding, to create turbulence to have a good mixing of the sediment over
the flow depth.
Test 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed: After the test, the flow was stopped and increased again to
5 l/s.

3.2.3.1 Sediment properties

Different sands were used depending on the aperture size of the screens.

The sands used for the tests of the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screens, are
natural sands from glacier fluvial deposits, from which the coarser particles have
been sieved out. The sieving curves of the two sands are shown in Figure 12.

The sand used for the tests of the 0.2 mm screen, is natural sand which has
been sieved so that the coarser particle size does not exceed 0.6 mm. The grain size
distribution is shown in Figure 13.

To produce the sieving curves, samples of sand were sieved. The sands used
for the tests of the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screens were wet sieved whereas the
sand used for the 0.2 mm aperture screen was dry sieved with the standard
procedure (vibration of the dry sand sample for 10 to 15 min and weight the sand
which was in the different sieves). Wet sieving involved mixing the sand sample with
water to break possible sand lumps and the use of water to help the sand particles to
pass through the sieves. Then the sieves were left to dry and once dry, the sand in
each sieve was weighted.

30
 100

90

Percentage of weight finer than d

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0,01 0,1 1 10
Sieve size, d (mm)
sand for 1 mm aperture screen tests sand for 0.5 mm aperture screen tests

Figure 12 – Sieving curves of sands used for the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screens tests

100

90
percentage of weight finer than d

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0,01 0,1 1
Sieve size, d (mm)

Figure 13 – Sieving curve of sand used for the 0.2 mm aperture screen tests

3.2.3.2 Sediment feeding

Three different methods were used to feed the sediments.

Method A (test 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed) consisted in feeding dry sediments with a

vibrating sediment feeder. A piece of plastic pipe was used to spread the sediments
over the flume width: the sediments dropped from the feeder onto the convexe side
of the pipe and into the water. This method produced a constant sediment load in the
water but it was abandoned because it produced a lot of dust, and the sediments

31
were not well distributed over the water depth, since the sediments dropped onto the
water and were transported near the water surface.

Method B (tests 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed, 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed, 0.5 mm – 30 l/s –

sed and 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed) consisted in mixing the sediments with water and
feeding them by hand with a trowel as water was running during the test. The trowel
full of sediments was dipped into the flow and the wet sediments were placed on the
wooden horizontal plate upstream of the screen (see on Figure 9 and Figure 10).
When the discharge was 5 l/s (tests 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed),
the sediments were carried away gradually by the flow as the sediment transport
capacity was low. As a consequence, the sediment load was constant and most of
particles were transported as bed load. When the discharge was 30 l/s (tests 1 mm –
30 l/s – sed and 0.5 mm – 30 l/s – sed), the transport capacity was much higher and
the flow entrained the sediments at once when the trowel was dipped into the flow,
producing sediment load peaks in the flow.

Method C (test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed) consisted in placing a layer of wet

sediments on the horizontal plate upstream of the screen (see on Figure 9 and
Figure 10) before the test when no water was running. Then the flow was turned on
at the beginning of the test and turned off as soon as all the sediments had been
carried away. The sediment load was constant at the beginning of the test and
decreased as fewer particles were to be transported until there was no sediment
load. The reason for choosing this feeding method for test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed was
that the test would give a large by-pass flow, and the settling basin’s capacity was
too small to settle the fine sediment particles. The test was started with an empty
settling basin and as the test was short, the settling basin did not get filled up. As a
result, all the sediments were captured.

3.2.3.3 Measurement methods for the sediment exclusion tests

20 kg of sediments were fed during each test, except for test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s –
sed, where only 5 kg were fed.

At the end of tests 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed, the sediments
which passed through the screen and the excluded sediments were separately
collected, dried and weighted. Then a sample of the sediments which passed through
the screen and a sample of the excluded sediments were sieved.

At the end of tests 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed, 0.5 mm – 30 l/s – sed, 0.2 mm – 5 l/s
– sed and 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed, only the excluded sediments were collected, dried
and weighted, and a sample was sieved. The reasons for handling only the excluded
sediment were to save time and that we had a better control of the excluded
sediments than the sediments which passed through the screen, as their particle
sizes were smaller and more difficult to settle.

32
3.2.4 Grass exclusion tests

The grass exclusion tests which were carried out for each screen, mostly
involved observations of the screen behaviour instead of measurements and the
results are qualitative. Table 6 presents the grass exclusion tests that have been
carried out.

Aperture Amount of
Flow
Test size Grass
(l/s)
(mm) (kg)
1 mm – 10 l/s – grass 1 10 2
1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass 1 30 - 40 4.4
0.5 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass 0.5 10 - 30 8.6
0.2 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass 0.2 10 - 30 5.5
Table 6 – Grass exclusion tests

Comments:
Test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass: After the test, the screen was flushed by increasing the
flow to 20 l/s for 5 min and to 30 l/s for 1 min.
Test 1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass: At 30 l/s, the feeding was done in two stages (5 min
long and 3 min long) followed by an interval without feeding (10 min and 14 min
respectively). Then the flow was increased to 40 l/s and grass was fed for 30 sec,
followed by 4 min without feeding. The flow was decreased to 30 l/s, and kept
constant for 1 hour.
Test 0.5 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass: Grass was fed for 6 min at 10 l/s. The flow was
increased to 30 l/s without any feeding and then grass was fed for 4 min, followed by
3 min without feeding.
Test 0.2 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass: Grass was fed for 5 min, followed by 5 min without
feeding. The flow was increased to 20 l/s and 30 l/s. Grass was fed for 2 min at 30
l/s.

The grass spears were in average about 5 cm long and the longest spears
were about 8 cm. The grass was mown from a lawn maximum 24 h before it was
used in the experiments. After being mown, the grass was collected and stored in
bags without being dried. The grass was fed by hand without any specific feeding
rate. It was released in the water over the width of the screen.

The trash exclusion efficiency was qualitative rather than quantitative. We

were not able to measure the diverted flow and the by-pass flow for several reasons
(too little flow or too much air mixed in the flow or the pipe was filled with grass) and
therefore we do not know quantitatively how clogging of the screen affected its
capacity.

33
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Capacity tests

In this chapter, only the wired part of the screen is considered and the
“horizontal length of the screen” refers to the horizontal length of the wired part of the
screen which starts at 27.7 cm from the upstream edge of the screen.
For each flow profile, the horizontal length of the screen which was needed to
divert the flow was turned into the percentage of the total screen length in the
horizontal direction which is 46 cm. By doing so, it was easier to compare the
capacity of three screens and the change in capacity after sediment and trash
exclusion tests.

3.3.1.1 Capacity of the new screens

The flow profiles were measured for 10 l/s, 30 l/s and 50 l/s for each screen
when it was new and an additional flow profile was measured at 5 l/s for the 0.2 mm
aperture screen. The screen and flow profiles are given in appendix 3. Table 7
presents the percentage of the horizontal length of the screen which was needed to
divert the flow.

% of the horizontal length of the screen needed to divert the flow

Screen
Q = 10 l/s Q = 30 l/s Q = 50 l/s
1 mm aperture 14.1 35.9 53.3
0.5 mm aperture 12 35.9 53.3
0.2 mm aperture 16.3 40.2 66.3
Table 7 – Percentage of the horizontal screen length needed to divert the flow

3.3.1.2 Capacity change after sediment tests

After the sediment tests (description given in Table 5), it was observed that
some particles were stuck in between the wires of the screen. Flow profiles were
measured to know the loss of capacity due to those particles. Table 8 presents the
percentages of the horizontal length of the screen needed to divert the flow when the
screens were new and after the sediment tests, and the by-pass flow after the tests.

For the 1 mm aperture screen, some particles were stuck in between the wires
but the capacity was not reduced after the sediment tests.
For the 0.5 mm aperture screen, the capacity is much reduced, however the
screen could still divert 10 l/s and 30 l/s without any spillage or by-pass flow.
Test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed is not directly comparable to the other tests
because only 5 kg of sediments were fed instead of 20 kg for the other tests.
Concerning test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed, the by-pass flow started very quickly
about one minute after the beginning of the test which lasted 18 min.

34
 % of the horizontal By-pass
Screen length of the screen needed flow
Flow
Test aperture to divert the flow after the
(l/s)
(mm) New screen After the test test
(%) (%) (l/s)
1 mm – 5 l/s – sed 1 10 14.1 14.1 0
1 mm – 30 l/s – sed 1 30 35.9 35.9 0
0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.5 10 12 48.9 0
30 35.9 70.7 0
0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.2 5 9.8 100 1.75
10 16.3 100 6.2
30 40.2 100 26.3
0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed 0.2 5 9.8 22.8 0
10 16.3 31.5 0
30 40.2 68.5 0
Table 8 – Change in capacity after sediment tests

3.3.1.3 Capacity change after grass tests

During the grass tests (description given in Table 6), some grass got stuck on
the screen and a flow profile was measured after tests 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass and 1
mm – 30-40 l/s – grass.

During test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass, there was no by-pass flow. A flow profile
was measured after the test at 10 l/s. Then the discharge was increased to 20 l/s for
5 min and to 30 l/s for 1 min, and decreased again back to 10 l/s. A new flow profile
was measured to quantify the effect of the flushing at higher discharges, which
helped to remove some of the grass spears but which did not remove all of them.
The results of the two flow profiles are presented in Table 9, in terms of the
percentage of the horizontal screen length needed to divert the flow.

% of the horizontal length of the

screen
Screen
Flow needed to divert the flow
Test aperture
(l/s) New First Second
(mm)
screen profile profile
(%) (%) (%)
1 mm – 10 l/s – grass 1 10 14.1 18.5 14.1
1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass 1 30 35.9 48.9 35.9
Table 9 – Change in capacity after grass tests

During test 1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass, the screen was covered with grass and
there was some by-pass flow which we were not able to measure. As soon as the
grass feeding stopped, the screen started to self-clean. The first flow profile was
measured after 14 min without grass feeding. At the end of the test, the water was
left running at a constant discharge (30 l/s) for one hour without any grass feeding

35
and after that, a second flow profile was measured. The results are in Table 9, as
percentages of the horizontal screen length needed to divert the flow.

3.3.2 Sediment exclusion tests

During test 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed, the sediments accumulated on the screen and
were scattered over the area below the “water limit” (under which all the water has
been diverted). The particles tended to bounce on the screen and to roll down below
the screen.
During test 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed, the sediments accumulated on the screen
and they formed a layer which covered the entire area below the “water limit”. The
layer moved gradually downwards and sediments dropped below the screen, as new
particles were fed and kept accumulating (see Figure 14).

Figure 14 – Evolution of the sediment layer during test 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed

During tests 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed and 0.5 mm – 30 l/s – sed, the “water limit”
was quite low on the screen and the sediments accumulated on the lower part of the
screen forming heaps or dropped below the screen.
During tests 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed, there was no
accumulation on the screen because there was by-pass flow and the excluded
sediments were flushed away.
After the tests 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed, very few particles
were blocked in between the wires, whereas after tests 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed, 0.5 mm
– 30 l/s – sed, 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed, the spaces between
the wires were very much clogged by particles (see Figure 15).

1 mm aperture screen 0.5 mm aperture screen 0.5 mm aperture screen, close

up
Figure 15 – 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screen clogged after sediment tests

The exclusion efficiency is the percentage of the amount of excluded

sediments over the total amount of sediments fed to the screen. It was computed for
all tests with the same definition which is detailed in appendix 4. The results are
presented in Table 10.

36
 In this definition of the exclusion efficiency, all particles which were collected
downstream, below the screen, were considered as excluded. However when there
was by-pass flow during the test, it entrained particles which were not subjected to
the screen’s exclusion action. Thus those particles cannot be considered as excluded
by the screen and it can be argued that the exclusion efficiency cannot be defined for
tests 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed and 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed as for the previous tests.
In case of by-pass flow, a second definition of the exclusion efficiency
(detailed in appendix 5), which takes into account the amount of by-pass flow, should
be used. The exclusion efficiency computed with the second definition is in Table 10
for test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed. It was not possible to compute it for test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s
– sed because the by-pass flow is unknown for that test.

Exclusion Screen
Flow d*<½ Size** ½ Size<d<Size Size<d
efficiency Test aperture
(l/s) (%) (%) (%)
definition (mm)
1st 1 mm – 5 l/s – sed 1 5 1.4 16.9 89.1
st
1 1 mm – 30 l/s – sed 1 30 1 39.7 91.4
1st 0.5 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.5 5 4.1 44.2 97.6
st
1 0.5 mm – 30 l/s – sed 0.5 30 2.8 46.9 98.5
1st 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.2 5 67.4 79.2 100.8
nd
2 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed 0.2 5 49.9 68 101.2
st
1 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed 0.2 30 49.5 64.4 99.8
Table 10 – Exclusion efficiency for sediment exclusion tests
*
d is the particle size in mm.
**
For the 1 mm aperture screen, Size = 1 mm and ½ Size = 0.5 mm
For the 0.5 mm aperture screen, Size = 0.5 mm and ½ Size = 0.25 mm
For the 0.2 mm aperture screen, Size = 0.2 mm and ½ Size = 0.1 mm

Whatever the feeding method (A, B or C) or the exclusion efficiency definition

used, there was some sediment loss since we were not able to settle 100 % of the
particles.

3.3.3 Grass exclusion tests

During test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass, some grass spears got stuck on the part of
the screen where the water was diverted but most of the grass slid down and
accumulated on the screen below the “water limit” (under which all the water has
been diverted). After about 7 min, a few cm thick grass layer covered the entire area
below the “water limit” of the screen, and after 11 min, all the grass that had
accumulated on the screen slid down at once below the screen. Then the
accumulation process started over again. There was no by-pass flow during the test.

During test 1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass, the grass started to accumulate on the
screen below the “water limit”. Then, because of some grass spears that were stuck
on the screen where the water was diverted, the length of screen needed to divert
the water increased, the flow reached further down, and it pushed the accumulated
grass which slid down below the screen. As long as grass was fed, the amount of
grass spears stuck on the screen increased, and it formed a thin layer which covered

37
most of the screen. As a result, the capacity of the screen was reduced, there was
some by-pass flow and the grass directly slid down without accumulating. When the
grass feeding stopped, the spears stuck on the screen were gradually removed by
the clean water. The lowest part of the screen self-cleaned first and the process
moved upwards until only few spears were left on the upper part of the screen which
seemed to need much more time to self-clean than the rest of the screen. It took
about 10 min to clean most of the spears and at the end of the test, the water was left
running for one hour at 30 l/s without any grass feeding. During that time, the screen
self-cleaned some more spears and after one hour, the capacity was back to the
original capacity. Figure 16 shows the evolution of the self-cleaning process.

During grass feeding 9 min after feeding grass stopped 1 h after feeding grass stopped
Figure 16 – Self-cleaning of the screen at 30 l/s during test 1 mm – 30-40 l/s – grass

During test 0.5 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass, when the flow was 10 l/s, the grass
accumulated on the screen and formed an about 5 cm thick layer over the area
below the “water limit” (see Figure 17). The layer slid down from time to time but only
a small amount of grass fell down each time, unlike during test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass.
In addition, it seemed that fewer spears were stuck on the screen where the water
was diverted than during test 1 mm – 10 l/s – grass. When the flow was increased to
30 l/s, the layer of accumulated grass slid below the screen. When the grass feeding
started (at the discharge of 30 l/s), the capacity of the screen was reduced and there
was some by-pass flow even though there were only few grass spears stuck on the
screen. The amount by-pass flow was varying and was estimated to be between 0
and 5 l/s. During the grass feeding, there was a little amount of spears stuck on the
screen and it seemed to remain quite constant. As soon as the feeding stopped,
there was no more by-pass flow and the screen started to self-clean the few spears
that were stuck.

Figure 17 – Evolution of grass accumulation on the screen at 10 l/s during test 1 mm – 10 l/s –
grass
During test 0.2 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass, at 10 l/s, the general behaviour was
the same as during test 0.5 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass, with the grass accumulating on
the screen, but the behaviour changed when the flow was increased to 30 l/s. During
test 0.2 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass, when grass was fed with a discharge of 30 l/s, many
more spears got stuck on the screen than during test 0.5 mm – 10-30 l/s – grass and
there was by-pass flow. Once the grass feeding stopped, the screen self-cleaned
some of the spears and there was no more by-pass flow.

38
3.4 Discussion
3.4.1 Capacity tests

Although we were not able to test the maximum capacity of the screens, the
capacity tests showed that it was much higher than the 30 l/s given by the
manufacturer. For the 1 mm aperture screen, the percentage of the horizontal length
of the screen needed to divert 50 l/s was 53.3 % and the estimated capacity is from
60 to 65 l/s.

From the capacity tests on the new screens, the 0.5 mm aperture screen
seems to have the same capacity as the 1 mm aperture screen but the 0.2 mm
aperture screen has a lower capacity. For diverting 10 l/s, the measurements give
that the 1 mm aperture screen needs more screen length than the 0.5 mm aperture
screen (14.1 % for the 1 mm aperture against 12 % for the 0.5 mm aperture). This
result may be explained by inaccuracy in the flow profile measurements. The flow on
the screen was rough, the “water limit” was constantly fluctuating, and it was
therefore difficult to measure near the end of the flow profile. Another possible
explanation is the variation of the supplied flow as the EMV indicated a fluctuation of
the flow in the water supply pipe.

The fact that the screen capacity is the same for the 1 mm and 0.5mm
aperture screens might be explained by the Coanda effect. Indeed, the aperture size
is reduced by half but there are more slots and in consequence the Coanda effect
acts an increased number of times. This could also explain why the capacity of the
0.2 mm screen is quite high considering the aperture size.

The changes in capacity during the sediment tests are due to clogging of the
screen by sediments. The clogging was very different between the screens; the 1
mm aperture screen was very little clogged whereas the 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm
aperture screens were very clogged (see Figure 15). It can be partly explained by the
difference between the sediments which were used for each screen. The amount of
particles which were “susceptible” to get clogged (aperture size ± 10 %) represented
2.5 % of the total amount of sediments for the 1 mm aperture screen, 8.8 % for the
0.5 mm aperture screen and 8.2 % for the 0.2 mm aperture screen. But it cannot
entirely explain why the finer screens got so much clogged.
The difference between test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed and test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s –
sed is explained by the fact that the amount of sediments that was fed was different.

Grass spears which were stuck on the screen affected the capacity of the
screens, but the tests have shown that either increasing the discharge for few
minutes or letting clear water run for one hour helped to remove the spears, resulting
in a return to the original capacity.

It was noticed that the capacity is not always related to the clogging state of
the screen. During the sediment or grass tests, it was observed that during the
feeding there was some by-pass flow which stopped as soon as the feeding ended.
Therefore the presence of sediment or grass in the water affects the capacity of the
screen even though the space between the wires is not clogged.

39
3.4.2 Sediment exclusion tests

The exclusion efficiency for the particle size between half the screen aperture
and the screen aperture varies for each test and ranges from 17 % to 79 %. The
manufacturer claims that most of the particles above half of the screen aperture are
excluded but it is not confirmed by the tests of the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture
screens whose exclusion efficiencies range from 17 % to 47 %. On the other hand,
the tests of the 0.2 mm aperture give better results with exclusion efficiencies from 64
% to 79 %.
The clogging of the screens may have played a role in the efficiency results. Indeed:
• the 0.2 mm aperture screen was the most clogged, it could not divert 5 l/s after
test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed (there was by-pass flow of 1.75 l/s) but also gave the
best exclusion efficiency results with 79 %;
• the 0.5 mm aperture screen was clogged but could still divert 5 l/s without any
by-pass flow, and its exclusion efficiency results were around 45 %;
• the 1 mm aperture screen was very little clogged, its capacity was unchanged
but its exclusion efficiency results were 17 % and 40 %.
It is likely that the particles clogged between the wires kept other particles from
entering the screen.

The 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screen tests show that the exclusion
efficiency is higher for 30 l/s than for 10 l/s. It is not the case for the 0.2 mm aperture
tests but as the conditions of test 0.2 mm – 30 l/s – sed were very different (different
feeding method, 5 kg of sediment instead of 20 kg), therefore it is difficult to compare
and to draw any conclusion.

The sediment exclusion efficiency results give that less than 100 % of the
particles above the screen aperture size are excluded except for test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s –
sed. This can be explained by the fact that the sample used for the sieving was not
very good and it did not represent exactly the excluded sediments. The exclusion
efficiencies of 100.8 % (first definition) and 101.2 % (second definition) for test 0.2
mm – 5 l/s – sed are explained by the same reason as before.

The second exclusion efficiency definition does not exactly correspond to

reality as most of the sediments are transported as bed load. In consequence the
efficiency computed with the second definition underestimate the real efficiency. In
case of by-pass flow, the real exclusion efficiency is in between the first and the
second definition.
The definitions used to compute the sediment exclusion efficiency took into
account the results from the sieving of the excluded sediments and not of the
sediment which passed through the screen because we had a better control of the
excluded sediments. Indeed the particle size of the excluded is in principle bigger
than the particle size of the sediments which passed through the screen. Thus it is
easier to settle the particles and the sediment loss is smaller. Therefore the influence
of the sediment loss on the results should be limited.

40
3.4.3 Grass exclusion tests

The grass tests gave very good results and the Coanda effect screen seems
to be self-cleaning in two ways. Firstly the grass did not clog the screen. It slid down
and accumulated where there was no more water on the screen. The capacity of the
screen was little affected and most of the water was still diverted. Secondly after the
grass feeding stopped, the screen self-cleaned the spears of grass which were stuck
on the screen. This process was quite fast at the beginning, it took about 10 min to
remove most of the spears but it slowed down as fewer grass spears were to be
cleaned and it needed about 1 hour to get back to the original capacity. The tests
showed that increasing the discharge or letting clear water run for some time helped
to remove some spear but not all of them. Since grass is an organic material which is
quite soft, it can be assumed that at a real intake the grass spears will eventually get
worn out by the action of the water and of the sediments contained in the water,
resulting in the total cleaning of the screen.
The difference between the grass exclusion efficiency of the three screens is
negligible in terms of size and quantity of grass which passed through the screens.

3.5 Conclusion on laboratory testing of Coanda effect screens

The capacity of the screens was around the double of the specifications from
the manufacturer. The tests showed that the capacity is sensitive to:
• sediment clogging which is permanent until the particles are manually
removed;
• grass spears stuck on the screen which are quickly (about 10 min) removed
by the flow after stopping the feeding;
• the presence of sediment or grass in the flow which induces by-pass flow but
which is temporary.

The sediment exclusion efficiency of coanda effect screens varies from test to
test and ranges between 17 % and 79 %. It seems that it is not good enough for the
use of Coanda effect screens at power plant where sediment is an issue. Decreasing
the aperture size is a way to exclude finer particles but test 0.2 mm – 5 l/s – sed
showed that the screen capacity dropped considerably due to clogging. Therefore a
compromise must be found between the size of the particles to be excluded and the
long-term capacity of the screen.

However, Coanda effect screens are self-cleaning and are a good solution for
power plant intakes where there are floating debris problems. During the tests, grass
did not clog the screens, the capacity was little affected but most of the water was
diverted and, after the grass feeding stopped, the screen self-cleaned the spears
which were stuck and the capacity went back to normal. If only grass exclusion is
taken into account, the 1 mm aperture screen is enough since 1 mm clearance is
much smaller than the turbine requirements.

Further testing should be carried out to confirm or not the tendency observed
for the 1 mm and 0.5 mm aperture screens that the sediment exclusion efficiency
increases with higher discharges. It would be also particularly interesting to carry out
some sediment tests with a discharge higher than the screen capacity.

41
Conclusion
The BEDUIN project has fulfilled its main objective with the writing of a
practical handbook describing the procedure for the design of different intake types
and hydraulic components, and has reached a new phase with the laboratory testing
of Coanda effect screens. New funds have been allocated to the project and it will
continue with further research on the Coanda effect screens including new series of
laboratory tests and the possible installation of a screen at a power plant intake site
to test its behaviour during winter. Indeed thanks to its self-cleaning quality, the
Coanda effect screen is of great interest for use at intakes of small hydropower
plants but it is absolutely necessary to make sure that it can withstand the Norwegian
winter conditions.

From a personal point of view, my job on the BEDUIN project has been
extremely rewarding. During the internship, I have had the chance to be put in charge
of different tasks which involved practical work in the field during the power plants
monitoring and visits, theoretical work at the office during the writing of the BEDUIN
report, and laboratory work for the testing of the Coanda effect screens. It has
enabled me to enhance my knowledge on numerous hydraulic related topics.
In addition, the tests on Coanda effect screens gave me the opportunity to
experience laboratory research which was completely new to me. I learned a lot as I
had to deal with every stage of the series of tests, from choosing the tests to be
carried out and the building of the experimental setup to the analysis of the results.
Finally working at the Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering
of NTNU was particularly rewarding because I had the chance to meet and work not
only Norwegians but also people from all over the world and it enabled me to
experience new ways of thinking and working.

42
References
Chow, V. T. (1973): Open-Channel Hydraulics, Civil Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill
International Editions.

Dulas Ltd (2005a): AquaShear © Coanda Screen Brochure, http://www.renewable-

resources.com/coandacd/coandaoverview.htm.

Dulas Ltd (2005b): Specifications, AquaShear © Coanda Screen,

http://www.renewable-resources.com/coandacd/coandaspecs.htm.

ENTEC AG (1998): Pilotprojekt COANDA Feinrechen für kleine Wasserkraftanlagen.

Frank, J. (1956): Hydraulische Untersuchungen für das Tiroler Wehr, Der

Bauingenieur, Heft 3.

Frank, J. (1959) : Fortschritte in der Hydraulik des Sohlenrechens, Der

Bauingenieur, Heft 1.

Howarth, J. (2001): Coanda hydro intake screen testing and evaluation,

unpublished, available from Dulas Limited, Machynlleth, Powys, SY20 8AX,
UK

Idelchik, I. E. (1979): Memento des pertes de charges, Coefficients de pertes de

charge singulières et pertes de charge par frottement, Collection de la
direction des études et recherches d’Electricité De France, Paris.

Kirschmer, O. (1926): Untersuchung über den Verlust an Rechen, Mitteilungen

Hydraulisches Institut München, Nr. 1.

Lévin, L. (1957): Etude Hydraulique des Grilles de Prise D’eau, Proceedings,

International Association for Hydraulic Research (Seventh General Meeting),
Vol. I, Bertrand, Lda., Lisbon, Portugal, pp. C11-1 to C11-11.

Lund, S. (2005): Inntak til Småkraftverk, Msc. Thesis, Department of Hydraulic and
Environmental Engineering, NTNU, Norway.

Meusburger, H. (2002): Energieverluste an Einlaufrechen von Flusskraftwerken,

PhD thesis, Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland.

Mosonyi, E. (1966): Wasserkraftwerke, Band I, Niederdruckanlagen, VDI Verlag,

Düsseldorf.

Sell, L. E. (1971): Hydroelectric Power Plant Trashrack Design, Journal of the Power
Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

43