RiverDebris:

Causes,Impacts,andMitigationTechniques

RyanN.Tyler
PreparedforOceanRenewablePowerCompany
BytheAlaskaCenterforEnergyandPower,April13,2011

Abstract
Perhapsthegreatestobstaclethatconfrontstheimplementationofcommercialscalehydrokinetic
devicesinriversisdebris.Untilrecently,thisproblemhasbeenlargelyavoidedbyinstallingdevicesin
areaswheredebrisisnotafactor.Thispracticesignificantlylimitsthepossiblelocationsfordeployment,
however,sonewtechniquesmustbedeveloped.Althoughthereislittleprecedentforlarge
hydrokineticdevicesandtheissueofdebris,thereareexamplesofeffortstoprotectotherengineered
riverinestructures.Inadditiontopresentingtheseexamples,wediscussthemechanismsforhowdebris
enterstheflowandistransporteddownstream,asthisinformationcanprovideimportantinsightinthe
developmentofdebrismitigationstrategies.

ii

Acknowledgments
Theauthorwouldliketothankallthosewhoofferedsupport,advice,andknowledge.Inparticular,
ProfessorJeromeJohnsonoftheAlaskaCenterforEnergyandPowerforhiscontinuedguidanceandfor
hishelpcontactingexpertsinthefield.GratitudeisalsoextendedtoJackSchmidforhishelpcompiling
evidenceofdebrisandhisphotographicexpertise.
RecognitionandgratitudegoestoBPfortheirfinancialsupportofmyresearchposition.Inaddition,the
fundingfromtheDenaliCommissionthroughanORPCfundedprojectwasinstrumental,aswasthe
supportfromtheAlaskaEnergyAuthority'sRenewableEnergyFundfortheNenanaConstruction
Project.

iii

TableofContents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii
1.Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
2. RiverDebrisCharacterization...............................................................................................................2
2.1
CausesandTypesofDebris..........................................................................................................2
2.2
DebrisTransport...........................................................................................................................3
2.3
ImpactForcesofDebrisonEngineeredStructures......................................................................5
2.4
DebrisAccumulation.....................................................................................................................6
3. ExistingDebrisMitigationTechniques..................................................................................................6
3.1
UpstreamDebrisDiversionTechniques........................................................................................6
3.1.1
Treibholzfangedebrisdetention/debrisbasins..................................................................7
3.1.2
Debrisbooms........................................................................................................................7
3.1.3
Debrisfins.............................................................................................................................7
3.1.4
Rivertrainingstructures........................................................................................................8
3.2
NearFieldDeflectorsandSweepers.............................................................................................8
3.2.1
Debrissweepers....................................................................................................................8
3.2.2
Debrisdeflectors...................................................................................................................9
3.3
TrashRacks..................................................................................................................................11
3.4
TechniquesCurrentlyUsedwithHydrokineticDevices..............................................................13
3.4.1
Deviceplacement................................................................................................................13
3.4.2
Furling.................................................................................................................................14
3.4.3
Debrisbooms......................................................................................................................14
3.4.4
Trashracks..........................................................................................................................15
3.4.5
Bladedesign........................................................................................................................16
3.4.6
Manualdebrisremoval.......................................................................................................16
4. ConclusionsandRecommendations...................................................................................................16
5. Appendices..........................................................................................................................................19
AppendixA:Maximumimpactforcesoflargewoodydebrisonengineeredstructures.......................19
AppendixB:Estimationoftheheadlossthroughatrashrackofbarswithvariousgeometry.............21
AppendixC:Determinationofthenaturalandforcingfrequenciesassociatedwithtrashracks
(fromLewin,1995)..................................................................................................................................23
AppendixD:Detailsoftrashracksthatfailedduringoperation(fromSyamalarao,1989)...................25
AppendixE:Assessmentofpotentialfordebrisproductionandtransportation(fromLagasseet
al.,2010).................................................................................................................................................26
6. Bibliography........................................................................................................................................28

iv

1. Introduction
Anytimeanengineeredstructureisplacedinariverenvironment,thepossibilityexiststhatitwill
encounterdebris.Theimpactofthisdebrisonastructureisanimportantaspectofthedesign.Boththe
forceoftheinitialimpactandthepossibilityofdebrisaccumulationmustbeconsideredindetermining
theeffectofdebrisonastructure.Historically,debrisaccumulationonbridgepiersandhydroelectric
damshasbeenamongthechiefconcernsassociatedwithriverdebris.Astheamountofdebrisbuildson
anobject,theforceitexertsontheobjectcanresultincatastrophicfailureandreducetheflow,
resultinginthebuildupofabackwaterandgreatlyreducingtheefficiencyofenergyconversion.
Additionally,asfloatingdebrisaccumulatesonastructure,itwillbegintopushdownwards,forcingthe
flowtotheriverbed,greatlyincreasingscour(Saunders&Oppenheimer,1993).Inhydrokineticdevices,
theeffectsofdebrisaccumulationareevenmoreprofound,sinceareductioninflowspeedreducesthe
kineticenergyoftheflowbythecubeofthevelocityreduction.Theforcesassociatedwithdebris
accumulationcanrapidlyleadtocatastrophicornearcatastrophicfailureinhydrokineticdevices.
Inthesummerof2010,asurfacemounted5kWEncurrentTurbinefromNewEnergybecamenearly
submergedintheYukonRiver(Ruby,Alaska)afteronlyafewdaysofdebrisaccumulation(Figure1).
Althoughthedevicerecoveredfromthatparticulardebrisincident,theYukonRiverIntertribal
WatershedCouncil,whichisresponsibleforthedevice,recentlydiscontinuedthetestingoftheturbine
partiallyduetocontinualdebrisissuesandthedangertoworkersofassociateduncontrolleddebris.

Figure1:Debrisaccumulationonthe5kWEncurrentTurbinebargeinRuby,Alaska(Johnson&Pride,2010)

FurtheruptheYukonRiver,duringsummer2010,AlaskaPowerandTelephone(AP&T)installeda
secondEncurrentTurbineinEagle,Alaska.Duringinitialdeployment,the25kWdevicewasconsistently
challengedbydebris.Whilethedeviceavoidedcatastrophicevents,theturbinebladessufferedfrom
debrisimpact,theefficiencywashinderedbecauseofaccumulation,andthepowerconnectiontothe
shorewascontinuallycompromisedbysubmergeddebrissnares.Astheypreparefortheirsecondwater
season,AP&Thasidentifiedtheissueofdebrisasthemostimportantproblemthatconfrontstheir
turbine(Beste,2011).
OntheMackenzieRiverinFortSimpson,NorthwestTerritories,anotherbargemountedEncurrent
TurbinewasinstalledinJune2010bytheNorthwestTerritoriesPowerCorporation.Aswiththetwo
1

turbinesinAlaska,debrisontheMackenzieprovedtobeaformidablechallenge.Theturbinewas
protectedbyadebrisboom,whichwasgenerallysuccessfulindeflectingsurfacedebris.Despitethe
protectionfromsurfacedebris,theturbinewasstruckbyaloginlateJune(Thompson,2010).The
damagesufferedduringthecollisionresultedinnearlytwomonthsofrepairsandredesigns(Thompson,
2010).AstheNorthwestTerritoriesPowerCorporationcontemplatesthefutureoftheproject,debris
willcontinuetobeoneofthemainconsiderations(Thompson,2010).
Manystudieshavebeenmadeonimpactmitigationofdebrisontraditionalstructures,suchasbridge
abutmentsandhydroelectricdams,althoughquantifiableassessmentoftheefficacyofthestudieshas
notbeenthoroughlydocumented.Inhydrokineticapplications,attemptstosolvethedebrisproblem
aremostlytheoretical.Mitigationstrategiescurrentlypracticedprimarilyexistinusewithsmall
hydrokineticdevices,typicallyinremoteareas.
Inordertodevelopapproachesforlargercommercialscalehydrokineticdevices,itisimportantto
understandwhattypeofdebrisadeviceislikelytoencounter,thewaythedebrisflowsdownariver,
andthecurrentdebrismitigationstrategiesinplacebothforsmallhydrokineticapplicationsandfor
traditionalstructures,suchasbridgepiersandhydroelectricdams.

2. RiverDebrisCharacterization
2.1 CausesandTypesofDebris
Debristransport,includingthetypeofdebris,themechanismsbywhichthedebrisenterstheflow,and
themannerinwhichitmoveswiththeflow,alldependgreatlyonthecharacteristicsoftheriverandthe
environmentthroughwhichitflows.Althoughdebristypeexistsinacontinuum,itisoftenhelpfulto
considerthreemainclassificationsforwoodydebris(Bradleyetal.,2005).Thefirstissmalldebris,which
includessmallbranches,leaves,andrefuse.Becauseofitssmallsize,thisdebriscanbetransportedinto
theflowbyavarietyofways.Inadditiontothemechanicsbywhichlargerdebrisenterstheflow,small
debriscanenterthroughwindeventsandseasonalchanges,resultinginlossoffoliage(Bradleyetal.,
2005).Mediumdebrisconsistsmostlyoflargerbranchesandcanentertheflowthroughasmaller
tributaryorrunoffstream,becauseofbankerosionorthebreakdownoflargerdebris,andthrough
floodevents(Bradleyetal.,2005).Largedebris,consistingofverylargebranchesandentiretrees,can
entertheflowinmanyofthesamewaysasmediumdebris,butwithafewrestrictions.Smaller
tributariesoftendonothavetheflowrateorthewidthtotransportlargedebris,sothedebrisdoesnot
oftenenterthemainflowviarunoff.Largedebrismostcommonlyentersthefloweitherduringaflood
eventorbecauseofbankerosion(Figure2)(Bradleyetal.,2005).Notsurprisingly,themagnitudeofa
floodeventandtheconcentrationofdebriswithinthefloodplainalsogreatlyaffecttheamountof
debristhatenterstheflow.Anytimetherearelongperiodsbetweenfloodevents,debrisproblemscan
beanticipated,andthefirstmajorfloodeventoftheyeartypicallycarriesthegreatestamountofdebris
intoariver(Chang&Shen,1979).Asuggestedflowchartforassessingdebrisproductionpotential
(Lagasseetal.,2010)isshowninAppendixE.


Figure2:Largedebrisenteringtheflowduetobankerosion(photocourtesyofJackSchmid,Alaska
CenterforEnergyandPower,2010)

2.2 DebrisTransport
Althoughthemannerinwhichdebrisistransportedinarivergreatlydependsontheflowcharacteristics
andtypeofdebris,somegeneralizationscanbemade.Whilemediumandlargedebriscanbecome
entangled,ithasbeenobservedthatfloatingdebrisrarelytravelsinlargemasses;thismaybearesultof
riverturbulencebreakingapartthetangleddebris(Chang&Shen,1979).Despitethistrend,entangled
debrisispossibleespeciallyduringhighwaterinareaswithheavydebrisloads.Debriseventscontaining
largeamountsofentangleddebriscanhavesignificantconsequencestoengineeredstructures(Figure
3).ChangandShen(1979)observedthatinstraightsectionsoftheriver,floatingdebristendstofollow
thethalwegattherisingstageofafloodevent,buttendstogravitateoutwardtowardthebankswhile
thewaterlevelisfalling(Chang&Shen,1979).Whenthewaterisneitherfallingnorrisingduetoaflood
event,secondaryflowcurrentstendtoconvergeatthesurface,resultinginthemajorityoffloating
debrisconcentratingalongonepath,whichtypicallyrelatescloselytothethalweg(Lagasseetal.,2010).
Largedebrisisfurtherrestrictedinhowitistransportedbasedonthesizeandflowoftheriver.Asthe
lengthofthedebrisapproachesthewidthoftheriver,thelikelihoodthatitwillbetransported
downstreamgreatlydiminishes(Bradleyetal.,2005).Inaddition,asthesinuosityoftheriverincreases
andtheradiusofthecurvesdecreases,thelikelihoodthatdebristransportwilloccurdiminishes
(Lagasseetal.,2010).Theexceptionoccursinriversthathavehighsinuosityandmigratingbanks,as
thoseconditionsoftenresultinanincreasedamountofdebrisenteringtheflowasthebankserode
(Lagasseetal.,2010).Asuggestedflowchartforassessingthepotentialfordebristransport(Lagasseet
al.,2010)isshowninAppendixE.

Figure3:Largeentangleddebriseventimpacting(upperleft)andcarryingoff(upperrightandlowerleft)afishwheelonthe
TananaRivernearNenana,Alaska,anddepositingitagainstabridgepier(lowerright)(courtesyofStephenLord)

Inadditiontothevastmajorityofdebris,whichfloatsonthesurface,itispossibletohavedebrisexist
throughoutthewatercolumn(Figure4).Althoughsubmergeddebrishasnotbeenextensivelystudied,it
hasbeenobservedthatthepotentialforsubsurfacedebrisgreatlyincreasesinareaswherebank
erosionisamajorcauseofdebrisenteringtheflow(Chang&Shen,1979).Whenbankerosion
contributestodebrisloadintheriver,itislikelythatlargewoodydebriswillincludeanintactrootball,
whichcanpullthedebrisbelowthesurface(Chang&Shen,1979).ThiseffectcanbeseeninError!
eferencesourcenotfound.,whichshowsatreefloatingverticallywithitsrootballscrapingalongthe
riverbed.


Figure4:SubmergeddebrisintheRedRiver,ManitobaCanada,asseenfromaDidsoncamera(RedRiverwoodydebrisand
predatoravoidance.RedRiver,Manitoba,2007)

Figure5:VerticallyfloatingtreewithitsrootballscrapingalongthebedoftheYukonRiver.Theeffectcanbeseenbythe
differentfreeboardprojectionsoftheupperportionofthetree(photoCourtesyofJackSchmid,AlaskaCenterforEnergyand
Power,2010)

2.3 ImpactForcesofDebrisonEngineeredStructures
Difficultiesinpredictingthepresenceofdebrisinariverarefurthercompoundedwhenattemptingto
anticipatetheimpactforcewithwhichthedebriswillstrikeanengineeredstructure.Theorientationof
debrisisadirectresultofthecollisiongeometryandtheforcesinvolvedwithanimpact.Intheirstudyof
impactforcesofwoodydebrisonfloodplainstructures,HaehnelandDalyfoundthatmaximumimpact
forceresultswhenthelogisorientedparalleltotheflowandstrikesthedevicewithitsend(Haehnel&
Daly,2002).Obliqueimpactswithsmallimpactanglescarrytheleastforce,andforceincreasesgradually
astheangleincreases,withajumpinimpactforcewhenthelogbecomesperpendiculartothestructure
(Haehnel&Daly,2002).Intheirlaboratoryscaletests,HaehnelandDalyfoundthatevenwhenlogs
werelinedupwithastructuredownstream,theymissedthestructureentirely40%ofthetime,and
fewerthan15%oftheimpactsresultedinmaximumforce.HaehnelandDalysstudyresultedinthe
formationofexpressionsforestimatingthemaximumimpactforceofcollisionsbetweenlargewoody
debrisandengineeredstructures.AppendixAincludesamoredetailedoverviewoftheirfindings

2.4 DebrisAccumulation
Althoughthepotentialfordebrisaccumulationismostcloselyrelatedtotheamountofdebrisinthe
flow,therearesomedesignconsiderationsformitigatingdebrisaccumulation.Ininstanceswherethere
aremultiplestructures,suchasbridgepiersorpossiblyanarrayofhydrokineticturbines,intheflow,the
distancebetweenstructuresplaysanimportantrole.Ifgapsbetweenpiersarelessthanthemaximum
debrislength,thenspanaccumulationislikelytooccur(Figure4).Ifaccumulationonindividual
structuresoccurs,thenspanaccumulationmayevenbepossibleifthegapsbetweenstructuresare
greaterthanthemaximumdebrislength(Lagasseetal.,2010).Debrisaccumulationonanindividual
structuredependsgreatlyonthegeometryofthestructure.Aperturesinthestructuregreatlyincrease
thelikelihoodfordebrisaccumulation(Lagasseetal.,2010).Inaddition,thealignmentofthestructure
intheflowcanaffecttheprobabilityofaccumulation;thosestructureswithskewedalignment
comparedwiththeflow,haveagreaterlikelihoodofcollectingdebris(Lagasseetal.,2010).

Figure4:Debrisaccumulationonbridgepiersandtheresultingfailure(Lagasseetal.,2010)

3. ExistingDebrisMitigationTechniques
Effortstoreducetheeffectsofdebrisonengineeredstructureshaveresultedinavarietyoftechniques.
Althoughfewtechniquesfordebrisprotectionhavebeendevelopedspecificallyforhydrokineticdevices
inriverenvironments,manyofthestrategiescouldhaveconsequencesforhydrokineticdevices.These
techniquesoftenincludeeitherdivertingorcapturingdebriswellupstreamofthedeviceorattempting
totrapdebrisatthedevice.
3.1 UpstreamDebrisDiversionTechniques
Inareasthatexperienceheavydebrisloads,itisoftennecessarytoprotectengineeredstructuresby
diverting,trapping,orotherwiseinfluencingtheflowofdebrisupstreamofthedevice.
6

3.1.1 Treibholzfangedebrisdetention/debrisbasins
Thefirstmethodforpreventingdebrisfromimpactingadeviceistoincorporateadebrisdetention
systemupstreamofthedevice.TheTreibholzfangedebrisdetentiondeviceconsistsofcircularposts
drivenintotheriverbedupstreamofthedevice.Thegeometryoftheposts,alongwiththedistance
betweentheposts,determinesthesizeofdebristhatcanbecaptured,aswellasthemannerinwhichit
isdetained.InphysicalmodeltestsattheHydraulicsLaboratoryattheTechnicalUniversityofMunich,
LainBachandArzbachdeterminedthatthebestconfigurationforretainingdebriswhileallowing
sedimentandwatertoflowthroughistohavethepostssetadistanceapartthatisequalto(orless
than)theminimumlengthofthedebrisintendedforcapture,andtoorientthepostsinadownstream
pointingV(Wallerstein&Thorne,1995).Alternatively,whenthepostswereplacedinastraightline
acrosstheflow,itwasfoundthatthedebriswasoftenpushedoverthebarrier.Becausedebriswas
trappedacrosstheentirewidthoftheflow(ratherthanbeingfunneledintoonearea),thebackwater
effectswereconsiderablygreaterthanwiththedownstreamVconfiguration(Wallerstein&Thorne,
1995).Whenthepostswereplacedinastraightlineangledacrossthewidthoftheriver(Lainbachand
Arzbachorientedthepostsina30angletothebank),orwhenthepostswereplacedinanupstream
pointingV,itwasdeterminedthatthebackwatereffectswerestillgreaterthanthedownstreamV
(Wallerstein&Thorne,1995).NotethatwhiletheupstreamVortheangledpostsmaynotbebetter
thanthedownstreamVfromahydrodynamicstandpoint,theyhavethesignificantadvantageof
directingdebristowardthebanks,whichshouldmaketheultimateremovalofdebrisfareasierthan
withthedownstreamV.
3.1.2 Debrisbooms
UnlikeTreibholzfangedebrisdetentiondevices,whichinvolvethepermanentimplantationofpostsinto
theriverbedinordertocapture,ordeflect,debristhroughouttheriverswatercolumn,debrisbooms
generallyconsistofafloatingdeflectordesignedtodirectsurfacedebris.Generallymadeoftimbers,
thesedevicesrequiretheinclusionofguidesoranchorstoholdtheminplace(Bradleyetal.,2005).
Onceinplace,debrisboomshaveprovensuccessfulindeflectingsurfacedebris,andtheyhavethe
significantadvantageofnotrequiringtheinstallationofpermanentstructuresintotheriverbed(aside
frompossiblytheanchoringsystem).Debrisbooms,however,donotofferasolutionfordebristraveling
belowthesurface,whichcanbeaprobleminareasthatexperiencelargewoodydebris,especiallyifthe
rootballsremainintact.Additionally,debrisboomsaresubjecttoaccumulation,particularlyiftheyare
heldinplacewithanchorlines.Despitethesepotentialproblems,debrisboomshavehadmany
applicationsintraditionalhydroelectricgeneration,andtheyhavebeenusedtoprotectsomesurface
mountedhydrokineticdevices.
3.1.3 Debrisfins
Whiledebrisboomsanddebrisdetentiondevicesaredesignedtopreventdebrisfromtraveling
downstreamortodirectdebrisawayfromanengineeredstructure,debrisfins(Figure5)allowdebristo
continuetravelingintheflowinadirectedmanner.Debrisfinshavebeenusedextensivelyinbridge
construction;theyconsistoffinsextrudingupstreamfromabridgeabutment.Whenapieceofdebris
hitsthefin,itisorientedparalleltotheflow,whichallowsittomoreeasilyflowpastthesupport
7

withoutgettingcaught(Bradleyetal.,2005).Alternatively,singlepostsimbeddedintheriverbed
upstreamofastructureoccasionallyreplacethefin(Bradleyetal.,2005).Inadditiontogreatlyreducing
thelikelihoodofbothimpactandentanglement,aligningthedebriswiththeflowreducestheforceof
theimpactinvolvedwithanycollision.Asdiscussedintheirstudy,HaehnelandDalyfoundthatthough
maximumimpactforceoccurswhenthedebrisimpactisendon,evenwhenlinedupwithastructure,
maximumimpactrarelyoccurs,whileminimumimpactforce,whichoccursinanobliquecollision,isfar
morelikely(Haehnel&Daly,2002).

Figure5:Concretedebrisfinextendingupstreamfrombridgepier(left)anddebrisdeflectingposts(right)
(Lagasseetal.,2010)

3.1.4 Rivertrainingstructures
Whilemostdebrismitigationstrategiesinvolvereducingtheimpactofdebriswithoutaffectingtheflow,
attemptstocapturedebrisbyalteringtheriversflowhavebeenmade.Rivertrainingstructuresare
similartoaweirorjetty.Theyextendfromthebanktocreateanartificialeddy,whichcatchesdebrisin
itsvortex(Bradleyetal.,2005).Oftentheseweirsareplacedinareaswheredebristendstotravelnear
theriversedge,forexample,alongtheouterbankofariverbend.
3.2 NearFieldDeflectorsandSweepers
3.2.1 Debrissweepers
Ratherthanattemptingtocontroldebrisupstreamofthestructure,sweepersanddeflectorsare
intendedtobufferthestructureitselffromimpactandtosteerdebrisaroundthestructure.Sweepers,
createdbyDebrisFreeInc.(USPatent#6406221),areverticallyalignedpolyurethanecylindersthatare
attachedtotheupstreamsideofastructureandwhichriseandfallwiththewaterssurface(Bradleyet
al.,2005).Sweepers,showninFigure6,arefreetorotateontheirverticalaxis.Becausesweepersrotate
freely,theysheddebris,greatlyreducingthelikelihoodofaccumulation.

Figure6:Debrissweepersattacheddirectlytoabridgepier(left)andpolemounted(right)(Lagasseetal.,2010)

Debrissweepershavebeeninstalledinanumberoflocations,buttheirefficacyvarieswidely.Intheir
2007springconference,staterepresentativestotheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayand
TransportationOfficialsexpresseddisparateopinionsonthemeritsofdebrissweepers(AASHTO,2007).
Althoughonerepresentative(MikeFaziofromUtah)reportedthatthedeviceshaveprovedeffective,
othersvoicedanumberofconcernsaboutthedevices(AASHTO,2007).Includedintheirobservations
weredevicefailuresduetoclogging,beingcrushedbylargedebris,andbeingdislodgedfromtheir
mounts(AASHTO,2007).Alsoexpressedwereconcernsabouthowdebrissweeperswouldhandleicy
conditions(AASHTO,2007).Apossiblefactorthatmaycontributetocloggingfailureofthesweeper
devicesiscurrentspeed;ithasbeenobservedthatsweepersarenotgenerallyeffectivewhenflow
speedsarelow(Lynetal.,2007)..
3.2.2 Debrisdeflectors
Debrisdeflectors(Figure7)aresimilartoalocalizedversionoftheTreibholzfangeposts.Deflectorsare
placedimmediatelyupstreamofthestructureinordertodirectdebrisaroundthestructure.Deflector
designsandmaterialvarygreatly;however,theyusuallyconsistofeitherwoodormetalorientedina
pairofverticalgridsthatcometogetherinaVshape,withtheapexpointingupstream(Bradleyetal.,
2005).Unlikesweepersandbooms,thesedeviceshavetheadvantageofbeingabletoprotectthe
structurefromdebristhroughoutthewatercolumn,andtheydonotrequireariverwidestructureas
withtheTreibholzfangeposts.Deflectorsdohavethepotentialtocatchdebris,sowhilemostdebrisis
deflected,accumulationcanbeaproblem.


Figure7:Debrisdeflectorplacedupstreamofculvertopening(Lagasseetal.,2010)

Becauseofthepotentialfordebristoaccumulateontraditionaldeflectors,theuseoflunateshaped
hydrofoildeflectorshasbeenproposed(Lagasseetal.,2010).Hydrofoildeflectorswouldbetetheredor
polemountedtotheriverbedupstreamofthestructureandwouldresideatagivendepthbelowthe
surface(Saunders&Oppenheimer,1993).Vorticesformontheleadingedge,andbecausethehydrofoil
isinclinedatadownwardangle,whendebrisisshed,ittravelsupwards(Saunders&Oppenheimer,
1993).Becauseofthehydrofoilsdesign,thevorticesrotatesuchthatthewaterclosesttothesurface
pushesoutwards(Saunders&Oppenheimer,1993).Thesevorticeswouldpropagatetothesurfacein
frontoftheabutment,deflectingdebrisaroundit(Lagasseetal.,2010).Intheirlaboratorytests,
SaundersandOppenheimer(1993)showedthattheirhydrofoilsuccessfullypreventeddebrisfrom
accumulatingonthepier;theyhypothesizedthatiftheyhaddesignedtheirdevicesothatitcould
oscillatethevaryingvorticeswouldgreatlyincreasethedevicesabilitytodislodgedebris(Saunders&
Oppenheimer,1993).Becausethehydrofoilisbothsubmergedandsolid,itisfarlesslikelyto
accumulatedebristhantraditionaldebrisdeflectorsare.However,despitesuccessfultrialsina
laboratorysetting,hydrofoildeflectorsremainuntestedinthefield.Figure8showsaschematicof
SaundersandOppenheimersoriginalhydrofoildesign(USPatent#5839853).

10


Figure8:SchematicofdebrisdeflectinghydrofoilfromSaundersandOppenheimer'soriginalpatent(Oppenheimer&
Saunders,1995)

3.3 TrashRacks
Themostcommontechniquefordealingwithdebrisintraditionalhydroelectricfacilitiesistouseatrash
racktokeepdebrisfromenteringthepenstock.Insomecases,theseracksaresimilarindesigntothe
debrisdeflectorsusedtoprotectbridgeabutments.Inthesecases,theracksaredesignedtodeflect
debrisfromthepenstockintake.Thistypeofdebrisdiversionisusedinmanyrunoftheriver
hydroelectricfacilities.
Traditionaltrashracks,designedtoprotecthydroelectricdams,consistofslightlyinclinedverticalbars
thatstretchnearlytheentireheightofthedam,typicallyfromthebottomoftheintaketoabovethe
watersurface(Bradleyetal.,2005).Theseverticalbarsarespacedaccordingtotheminimumdebrissize
thatneedstobekeptfromenteringthepenstock,andtheyaregenerallymadeofeithermildcarbon
steel,althoughwroughtiron,alloysteel,andstainlesssteelarealsousedinsomeareas(Bradleyetal.,
2005).Thebarsareoftenattachedtothedamviahorizontalsupports,whichcanbemanufacturedsuch
thatremovalformaintenanceispossible.Trashracksarefacedwiththetwomajorchallengesof
accumulatingdebrisandheadlossduetotheaccumulationofdebrisandtotheracksthemselves.In
addition,structuralfatigueoftheracksisaseriousdesignconsideration.

11

Unlikedebrisdeflectors,whicharedesignedtosheddebris,trashracksfortraditionalhydroelectric
dams(Figure9)spanthewidthoftheflow,sodebrisaccumulationisaconstantissue.Debris
accumulationisinitiallydealtwithbytheslopeoftheracksincline.Rangingfrom15to45forlow
pressuresystems,theslopeoftherackpushesdebristowardthesurfaceandawayfromintake
structures(Bradleyetal.,2005).Regardlessoftheslope,debrisaccumulatesontherackaffectingits
efficacyandchallengingitsstructuralintegrity.Becauseofthis,debrisremovalsystemsarecriticalfor
trashracks.Debrisisusuallyremovedfromarackbyraking,whichcanbedonebyhandorwith
mechanizedrakes.Mechanicalrakeshavebecomethestandardforlargehydroelectricfacilities;they
operatebyloweringtherakeintothewaterandpullingituptherackface.Onceatthetopoftherack,
debrisisdepositedintoacollectionreceptacle(Bradleyetal.,2005).Therakescanbeguidedor
unguided.Asthenamesuggests,guidedrakesoperateonguidesattacheddirectlytothedam.Guided
rakeshavetheadvantageofoperatingeffectivelybothondamswheretherackdoesnotstretchthe
entireheightofthedamandinareaswherestrongtransversecurrentsexist(Bradleyetal.,2005).
Guidedrakestendtobemoreexpensive,however,andthereisriskthattheguideswillclogwithdebris
(Bradleyetal.,2005).Unguidedrakeshavewheelsthatallowthemtotravelalongtherackface;they
relyonwaterpressureandtheinclinationoftheracktostayagainsttherackface(Bradleyetal.,2005).
Unlikeguidedrakes,unguidedrakeshavetheabilitytotraveloverdebriswithoutgettingstuck,sothey
areoftenpreferredinareaswherelargedebrisaccumulationisanticipated.Unguidedrakes,though,are
notwellsuitedtoareassubjecttolargetransversecurrentsortoareaswheretheracksdonotextend
theheightofthedam(Bradleyetal.,2005).

Figure9:Trashrackandmechanicaldebrisrake(HydroComponentSystems,2007)

Whiledebrisaccumulationreducesflowthroughtherackandthusreducesthehead,theproblemof
headreductionispresentevenwhendebrisisnot.Becauseofthis,debrisracksareoftendesignedto
balancethesizeofthedebristheyaremeanttocapturewiththeamountofheadlossthatisacceptable
fortheirapplication.Alongwiththespacingbetweenthebars,thegeometryofthebarshasalarge
12

impactontheheadlossassociatedwiththerack.Despitethis,mosthydroelectricdamsavoidstreamline
barsbecauseoftheirhighercost,relyinginsteadonrectangularbars.Onerepresentationofthe
predictedheadlossthroughatrashrack,basedonbargeometryandspacing,isfoundinAppendixB.
Thelargestcausefortrashrackfailurehascomenotfromtheforceofacollision,butratherfrom
materialfatigueduetothevibrationsassociatedwithvortexshedding(Bradleyetal.,2005).Becauseof
this,rackdesignsmustbalancetheabilitytocapturedebriswhileminimizingheadloss,withreduction
invibrations.Vibrationalforcesarearesultofresonancebetweenthenaturalfrequencyoftherackand
theforcingfrequencyduetovortexshedding(Lewin,1995).Anapproachfordeterminingthenatural
andforcingfrequenciesisgiveninAppendixC.Becausetheforceofthesevibrationsincreaseswiththe
speedoftheflow,vibrationsarelikelytobeagreaterconcernforhydrokineticapplicationsthanthey
areforhydroelectricdams.Indamapplications,vibrationalconcernshavebeenmitigatedbyincluding
lateralstabilizersmadeofbutylrubberinrackdesigns(Bradleyetal.,2005).Inonestudy,theaddition
ofrubberstabilizersreducedthemagnitudeofvibrationalforcefrom2.15gto0.1g(Bradleyetal.,
2005).Inaddition,thegeometryofthebarsaffectsthepotentialforvibrations.Inordertominimize
vibrationaleffects,thebarsshouldbeasclosetosquareaspossible;squarebars,however,resultin
significantheadloss,sothistoomustbebalanced(Bradleyetal.,2005).Examplesoftrashrack
geometriesandtheirfailuresarefoundinAppendixD.
3.4 TechniquesCurrentlyUsedwithHydrokineticDevices
Whiletheimpactofdebrisontraditionalhydroelectricdamsandengineeredstructuressuchasbridges
hasbeendocumentedandstudied,theimpactofdebrisonhydrokineticdeviceshasbeenlargely
ignoredorisatbestanecdotal.Themajorityofcommercialscaledevicesthatareoperationalhavebeen
placedinareaswheredebrisisnotamajorissue.Worldwide,themajorityofcommercialscale
hydrokineticturbineshavebeenplacedintidalestuariestocapturethekineticenergyintidal,rather
thanriver,currents.Whiledebrisisapotentialissueintheseareas,itisfarlessofaconcernthanin
rivers.Inrivers,thefirstFERClicensedandcommerciallyoperationalhydrokineticpowerplantinthe
U.S.,HydroGreenEnergysturbineinHastings,Minnesota,wasplacedattheoutflowofanexisting
hydroelectricdam,partiallytoavoidanyworriesaboutdebris(HydroGreenEnergy,LLC,2010).Inthose
siteswheredebrisisahazard,suchasthetwopilotscaleprojectsinAlaskausingNewEnergy
hydrokineticturbines,theproblemremainsunresolved,asdiscussedintheintroductiontothisreport
(Johnson&Pride,2010).Becauseofthis,informationregardingexistingdebriscountermeasuresfor
hydrokineticdevicesisscarceandvirtuallynonexistentatthecommercialscale.However,therearea
numberofsmallscalehydrokineticprojects,mostlyexistinginruralareasofthedevelopingworld,that
havetakenmeasurestoreducetheimpactofdebrisontheiroperations.
3.4.1 Deviceplacement
Thefirstmethod,employedtomitigatetheeffectsofdebris,isintheplacementofthedevice.Thefirst
aspectofdeviceplacementisdepth.Becausethemajorityofdebrisfloatsonthesurface,itisimportant
toestimatethedepthunderwhichthelittledebrisflows.Placementofdevicesatadeepenoughlevel
wasfoundtobethegreatestcommonfactorsitedbymanufacturersinhowtheirdevicesavoiddebris.
13

Evenmanufacturersthatutilizesurfacemountedturbines,suchasNewEnergyandThroptonEnergy,
bothofwhichdevelopsmallscaleturbinesforuseinremoteareasofthedevelopingworld,referto
placingtheirturbinesfarenoughbelowthesurfacemounttominimizecollisionsbetweentheturbine
anddebris(Sexon,2010).
Inadditiontoplacingturbinesdeepenoughtoavoidsurfacedebris,thelocationoftheturbinewithina
riversectioncanhaveaprofoundeffectonthedebristhedevicewillencounter.Asdiscussed,the
majorityofdebristravelsinthethalweg,sothismaybealocationtoavoid.Unfortunately,thistactic
usuallyhasthedeleteriouseffectofavoidingtheareaoftheriverthatcontainspeakcurrents.Asimilar
tactic,usedbyThroptonEnergy,istoplacedevicesdownstreamoftheinneredgeofarivercurve.
Becausedebristendstoflowtowardtheouterbankasitroundsacurve,itisoftenpossibletofinda
locationdownstreamoftheinneredgewheremuchofthewatersvelocityhasrecovered;however,the
majorityofdebrisisstilllocatedclosertotheouterbank(Sexon,2010).ThroptonEnergycreditsthe
placementoftheirdevicesasthebiggestreasonwhytheyareabletoavoidmajordebrisissues,
althoughtheyacknowledgethattheirdevicesareoftennotplacedintheoptimalflowlocation(Sexon,
2010).
3.4.2 Furling
Inlocationsthatencountervaryingwaterlevelsandthepotentialforhighdebrisloads,furlingis
occasionallyusedaswaytoavoidmajordebrisevents(Anyi&Kirke,2010).Furlingallowsthedeviceto
beliftedoutofthewaterintheeventthatdebrisispresentintheflow(HandsOn:TheEarthReport,
2004)(Figure12).Thisisanextremelyeffectivetactic,butatpresent,itisonlyusedinareaswherethe
devicesaresmallenoughtoberemovedeasilyfromthewaterandwherethereisahumanoperator
presenttodetectdebris.Itmaybepossibletoautomatethisprocessforlargerdevices,perhapsplacing
thedeviceonatrackwithadetectorsothatitcanmovesidetosideasdebrisisdetected,althoughno
suchtechniqueiscurrentlybeingpursued(Daly,2010).

Figure10:Furlingofmicrohydrokineticbatterychargingdevice(HandsOn:TheEarthReport,2004)

3.4.3 Debrisbooms
Whilefurlingiseffective,itcanresultinthedeviceroutinelyexitingtheflowinordertoavoiddebris,
anditrequiresconstanthumansupervision.Ratherthanremovingtheturbinefromthepathofdebris,
14

debrisboomsandtrashracksareusedtopreventdebrisfromreachingthedevice.Debrisboomsare
oftencomprisedoffloatingwoodlogsinanupstreampointingVandarelocatedupstreamofthe
device;andtheyareoftenheldinplacebyamooringline(YukonRiverInterTribalWatershedCouncil,
2008).Similartodebrisdeflectorsusedinbridges,debrisboomsaredesignedtodeflectsurfacedebris
aroundadevice(Figure11).Thesedeviceshavebeenusedwithsomesuccessforsurfacemounted
turbines;however,liketheirbridgecounterparts,theysufferfromthepotentialfordebrisaccumulation,
especiallyonthemooringline(Figure1).

Figure11:Debrisboomon5kWEncurrentTurbineinRuby,Alaska(YukonRiverInterTribalWatershedCouncil,2008)

Inpreparationfortheseconddeploymentseasonoftheir25kWEncurrentTurbine,AP&Tsees
refinementofthedebrisboomasoneofthebestwaystocombatdebris(Beste,2011).Thecompanyis
planningtobuildamorerobustboom,whichextendsintothewatertohelpprotecttheturbinefrom
debristravelingjustbelowthesurface(Beste,2011).
3.4.4 Trashracks
Inordertopreventdebristhroughoutthewatercolumnfromimpactingthedevice,upstreamtrash
racksmaybeused.Whiletrashracksforhydrokineticdevicessharemanysimilaritieswiththoseusedin
dams,thereareimportantdistinctionsthatmaketheiruseinhydrokineticsmoredifficult.Thefirst
majorissueisdebrisaccumulation.Whendebrisaccumulatesonthetrashrackofahydroelectricdam,it
isremovedbyatrashrake,whichrequiresalargeamountofpowerandinfrastructuretooperate.
Smallerhydrokineticdevicesdonothavethatluxury.Asdebrisaccumulates,itgreatlyreducestheflow,
whichisthesecondmajorissuewiththeimplementationoftrashracksforhydrokineticdevices.The
placementofatrashrackoccursfarenoughupstreamthatflowcanrecoveritsvelocitybeforereaching
theturbine.Ifatrashrackisplacedtoofarupstream,however,debriswillalsorecoverintheturbines
path.TheseeffectswereencounteredintheUniversityofSouthAustraliasattemptstoimplementa
turbineinBorneo.Duringthisimplementation,debriswasfoundtobeamajorissueinthejungle
environment(Anyi&Kirke,2010).Attemptstoblockdebriswithupstreamscreenshaveresultedin
significantcloggingandblockingofflow(Kirke,2010).Continueddifficultieswithclogginghaveresulted
inabandonmentofthetrashrackasaviableoptionfordebrismitigation(Kirke,2010).
15

3.4.5 Bladedesign
Becauseofthedifficultiesassociatedwithblockingordeflectingdebrisupstreamofadevice,many
manufacturershopethatthedesignoftheirbladeswilleffectivelysheddebris(Anyietal.,2010).
Althoughquantitativeevidencedoesnotexistfortheeffectivenessofsweptbladesintheirabilityto
sheddebris,companiessuchasVerdantPowercredittheirbladedesignsasbeingoneofthemajor
reasonsthecompanyhasbeenabletoavoidcatastrophicdebrisproblems(Taylor,2010).Takingswept
bladesastepfurther,foldingbladesarebeingconsideredasawaytoreducetheimpactofdebrisona
turbinesblades.OnesuchsystemiscurrentlybeingdesignedbytheUniversityofSouthAustraliafor
implementationinBorneo(Kirke,2010).Theeffectivenessoffoldingbladeshasnotyetbeentested.
3.4.6 Manualdebrisremoval
Whileseeminglyobvious,oneofthemosteffectiveandoftenoverlookedtechniquesforhandlingdebris
isdirecthumanobservationandremoval.Ineachoftheirturbines,ThroptonEnergyenliststheuseofa
localindividualtomonitorthedevicefordebrisandremovedebrisasitbeginstoaccumulate(Sexon,
2010).Whilethecompanycreditsanumberofdebrismitigationtechniques,thecontinuedsuccessof
theirturbinesultimatelydependsonthemonitorsabilitytokeepitfreeofdebris(Sexon,2010).Debris
removalbyindividualsmaylenditselfmoretosmallturbines,suchasthoseinstalledbyThropton
Energy;however,thistechniqueisalsobeingpursuedbythoseresponsibleforlargerturbines.During
thefirstsummeroftheirdevicesdeployment,AP&Toftenhadtoremovedebrisbyhand.Despitethe
sizeofthebargeonwhichtheirturbinewasmounted,thisremovaloftenrequiredtheuseofan
additionalvessel(Beste,2011).Thecoordinationofasecondboatinordertoextractdebrisfromthe
anchoredturbinewasdifficultduetowaterspeedandturbulenceinthearea,oftenrequiredadditional
personnel,andsignificantlyincreasedtherisktothoseremovingthedebris(Beste,2011).Becauseof
this,AP&Tismakingimprovementstotheirbargesothatthetwolocalemployeesassignedtothe
projectwillbeabletoremovedebrissafelywithouttheuseofadditionalboatsorpersonnel(Beste,
2011).

4. ConclusionsandRecommendations
Itisclearthatdebrisintheflowcanhaveasignificantdeleteriousimpactonengineeredstructures.
Debrisaccumulationonbridgepierscanleadtoincreasedscour,backwaterbuildup,andincreased
structuralstress,whichhascausedbridgefailures.Inconventionalhydroelectricfacilities,debrisbuildup
hasledtosubstantialheadloss,leadingtodrasticreductionsinefficiency.Forhydrokineticturbines,the
effectsarepotentiallymoreprofound.Duringthesummerof2010,threeofthefirstcommercialscale
hydrokineticdevicestoentertheriversofNorthAmericaexperiencedperiodsofdiscontinuouspower
production,andhadtobeentirelyremovedfromtheflowbecauseofdebris.
Becauseofthepotentiallycatastrophicconsequencesofbothdebrisaccumulationanddebrisimpact,
thedevelopmentofsuccessfulmitigationstrategiesiscriticaltothesuccessofhydrokineticdevices.
Unfortunately,nomethodsareinplacethatbothprotectthedeviceandpreventheadlossduetodebris
accumulation.Itisnocoincidencethatmostoftheearliestimplementationsofcommercialscale
16

hydrokineticdeviceshaveoccurredinriversortidalzoneswheredebrisisnotamajorfactor.When
smallscaledeviceshavebeenplacedinriverswheredebrisispresent,theyhaveoftenbeenplacedin
anareaoftheflowwheredebrisislesslikelytobetransported.Despitethesebestefforts,determining
wheredebriswillflowisatbestbasedonprobabilities,andwhilegeneralizationsaboutflowpatterns
areoftenmade,exceptionsarenumerous.Inaddition,byplacingdevicesinregionsthatmaynot
containasmuchdebris,smallscaledevicesencounterreducedflowconditions.Whileareductionin
powergenerationcapabilityduetodeviceplacementinslowercurrentsmaybetoleratedinsmallscale
applications,itisunlikelytobeacceptableincommercialscaleprojects.Inthefewinstanceswhere
deviceshavebeeninstalledindebrisheavyflows,countermeasureshavebeenlimitedintheirsuccess.
Becauseofthelackofprecedingexamplesinhydrokineticdevices,itwillbeimportanttodrawfrom
lessonslearnedintryingtoprotectbridgepiersandhydroelectricdams.
Inbothdamsandbridgesupports,debrisracksanddebrisdeflectorshavebeenusedtoeffectively
preventdebrisfromenteringpenstocksandcollidingwithpiers.Themostglaringissueassociatedwith
thesedevicesisdebrisaccumulation.Inconventionalhydroelectricfacilities,amassingdebrisismost
commonlymanagedbyremovingitwithmechanicaldebrisrakes.Itseemsunlikelythatthistechnique
couldbeeasilytransferredtosmallerhydrokineticdevicesthatmaybesubmergedinthemiddleofa
river.Inadditiontothechallengeofbuildingandmaintainingarakingsystemforahydrokineticdevice,
manymechanicalrakeshavebeenshowntohavedifficultyoperatingwhentherearetransverseor
turbulentconditions.Despitedecadesofattemptstopreventthebuildupofdebrisonbridgepiers,
solutionstothedebrisproblemsarestillevolving.Someofmostrecentdevelopments,suchasdebris
sweepers,haveshownpromise,evenwhileresultsaremixed.Despitethevariedlevelsofsatisfaction
withdebrissweepers,theinclusionofsweeperlikedevicesmayhelpincreasethechancesthatdebrisis
shed.
Itseemslikelythat,regardlessofthedevice,someamountofdebriswillaccumulate.Whatsmallscale
hydroelectricturbineshavereliedonforyears,andwhatAP&Tdiscoveredin2010,isthehuman
elementthatisnecessarytodealingwithaccumulatingdebris.Evenhydroelectricdamsthatkeeptheir
debrisrackscleanusingmechanicaldebrisrakesoftenusediverstoinspecttherackstobesuretheyare
clearofdebris(Wallerstein&Thorne,1995).Theabilityforadebrisdevicetobeinspectedand
potentiallycleanedofdebrisbyhandislikelytobeanimportantaspectofadesign.
Evenwithouttheaccumulationofdebris,aprotectivedeviceupstreamofaturbinecanhavea
substantialeffectonflowratethroughtheturbine.Theheadlossthroughadeflectororother
protectivedeviceisanimportantdesignconsideration.Becausetheefficiencyofhydrokineticdevicesis
moresusceptibletosmallchangesinflowspeedthanhydroelectricdams,itwillbemoreimportantto
considerheadlosswhendecidingonbargeometryandbarspacingforadeflector.Becauseamore
streamlinedbargeometryislikelytobenecessary,thevibrationaleffectscausedbyvortexsheddingwill
alsobeanimportantfactor.
Theneedtodevelopeffectivestrategiesforcombatingriverdebrishasbeenwellrealizedandmaybe
themostimportantobstaclethatfacescommercialscalehydrokineticturbines.Whatisnotunderstood
ishowbesttopreventdebrisimpactandaccumulation,withoutlosingflowvelocity.Eveninfields
17

wheredebrisdeflectionandcontainmenthavebeenpracticedfordecades,nosolutionhasbeenfound.
Whilelessonscanbelearnedfromthoseareas,thedevelopmentofsuccessfuldebrismitigation
strategiesforhydrokineticdevicesisonlygoingtooccurthroughthedesign,implementation,and
refinementofthoseapproaches.

18

5. Appendices
AppendixA:Maximumimpactforcesoflargewoodydebrisonengineeredstructures
Intheirstudyofimpactforcesoflargewoodydebrisonengineeredstructures,HaehnelandDaly(2002)
investigatedthreestrategiesforestimatingtheimpactforce.Althoughtheyconcludedthatthethree
methodsweretheoreticallyequivalent,practically,theyarenotthesame.Belowisanaccountofsome
oftheirfindings.
A.1 ContactStiffnessApproach
Thisapproachusedanexpressionforthemaximumimpactforceadoptedfromtheequationforimpact
forceofvesselsonapier:
8.15

whereDWTisthedeadweighttonnage(longtons)ofthevessel.
Thisapproachtoestimatingmaximumforceusestheeffectivecontactstiffnessofthecollisionofan
objectatagivenspeed.HaehnelandDalyfoundthat
1550

where isthelogvelocityand isthefluidaddedmassofthelog.Thisapproachprovidesclosely

coordinatedestimatesforthemaximumforce;however,ittendstooverpredictimpactforcesunder
10kN.
A.2
ImpulseMomentumApproach
Thisapproachequatestheimpulseactingonthedebriswiththechangeinmomentumofthedebris,
anditisgovernedbytheequation:

whereIisthetotalchangeinthemomentumofdebrisduringtheimpact,Fistheforceactingonthe
debris,and isthetimeaveragedforce.Byusingtheassumptionthattheimpactforcegoestozero
throughtheperiodofthecollision,thetimeaveragedforcebecomes:

wherewistheweightofthedebrisand istheimpactduration,whichFEMAandtheU.S.ArmyCorps
ofEngineerssuggestsavalueof1s.Throughtheirstudy,theequationofforthemaximumforcewas
foundtobe:
,

90.9

19

Thisequationwasfoundtobelimitedtologswithmassesintherangeof200330kg.Asaresultof
assumingaconstantimpacttime,thisequationwasfoundtounderpredicttheforcesforthereduced
scalelogsusedinthetests.
A.3
WorkEnergyApproach
Byassumingthatthevelocityofthedebrisgoestozeroduringcollision,thisapproachequatesthework
doneonthestructurewiththekineticenergyofthedebriselement.
1
2

Theforceoftheimpactisafunctionofthedistance,x,overwhichthecollisionoccurs.TakingS,the
stoppingdistance,tobethedistancetraveledbythedebrisasitsvelocitygoestozerothroughoutthe
collision,themaximumforcebecomes:
2
,

Usingthisequationasabasis,themaximumimpactforcewasfoundtobeapproximatedby:
,

125

8000

Thisequationonlyappliestodebriswithkineticenergygreaterthan50J,anditwasfoundtoover
predicttheimpactforcesasaresultofassumingaconstantstoppingdistanceforvariousdebris
velocitiesandweights.
A.4
ComparisonoftheApproaches
Inthecomparisonofeachapproachwiththeirscaledlaboratorytests,HaehnelandDalyfoundthe
contactstiffnessapproachtobethemostaccurateovertheentiredomain.Thiswasprimarilyaresultof
thedifficultiesinmeasuringtheimpacttimeandimpactdistanceneededintheimpulsemomentumand
workenergyapproaches.

20

AppendixB:Estimationoftheheadlossthroughatrashrackofbarswithvariousgeometry

B.1
EquationfortheHeadLossThroughaTrashRack
ThefollowingequationwasdevelopedbyKirschmer,discussedbyZowski(1960),andappearedin
WallersteinandThornes(1995)discussionofdebrismitigationforhydroelectricdamsinEurope.
/

where

sin

lossofheadthroughracks,ft

thicknessofbars,in.

velocityofapproach,ftpersec

accelerationduetogravityftpersecsquared

angleofbarinclinationtohorizontal,degrees
factordependingonbarshape(estimatedvaluesshownbelow)

21

B.2

KfactorValuesDevelopedbyZowski

ComparisonbetweenthetheoreticalheadlossusingKirschmerandZowskisdevelopmentand
laboratorytestshavefoundthatforacleanrack,thetheoryunderestimatedtheheadlossbyafactorof
1.75to2(Bradleyetal.,2005).Thisfactor,whichisgreatlyincreasedwhentherackbeginstobecome
cloggedwithdebris,wasfoundtobeashighas4with50%clogging(Bradleyetal.,2005).

22

AppendixC:Determinationofthenaturalandforcingfrequenciesassociatedwithtrashracks
(fromLewin,1995).

C.1

TheNaturalFrequency

where

naturalfrequency

lengthofbarbetweensupports

gravitationalconstant

acoefficientdependingonhowthebarsarefixedtothesupports.
Typically,barsareweldedtothesupportingstructure,resultingin
valuesbetween16and20forbarsbetween60and70mmdeepwith
thicknesstodepthratiosof5:1.

Youngsmodulus
momentofinertiaofscreenbar

massofscreenbar
addedmassofwater;thisisthemassofwatervibratingwiththebar

canbeapproximatedby:
8

where
theeffectivespacingbetweenbars

thethicknessofthebar

Ithasbeensuggestedthatthevalueof belimitedto0.55timesthebardepthforabarwitha
depthtothicknessratioof10,and1.0timesbardepthforadepthtothicknessratioof5.
C.2

TheForcingFrequencyDuetoVortexShedding

where

forcingfrequency

Strouhalnumber.Thisdependsonspacingbetweenthebarsandthe
shapeofthebars.ThelimittotheStrouhalnumberisusuallytakento
23

occurwhenthebarspacingtobarthicknessratiois5orgreater.Fora
fullyroundedbar,thislimitleadsto
0.265,whileabarwithsquare
cornerswillhavealimitof
0.155.

approachvelocity
thicknessofscreenbar

24

AppendixD:Detailsoftrashracksthatfailedduringoperation(fromSyamalarao,1989)

25

AppendixE: Assessmentofpotentialfordebrisproductionandtransportation(fromLagasse
etal.,2010)

E.1

FlowchartforEvaluatingDebrisProductionPotential

26

E.2

FlowchartforEvaluatingDebrisTransportPotential

EVALUATE POTENTIAL FOR DEBRIS

TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY

Direct evidence
of potential for debris
transport and delivery

Documented

chronic or frequent
accumulations at
one or more bridge
sites along this
channel or upstream
tributaries
Abundant debris
stored in channel
and/or along banks
Ongoing or prior
need for debris
removal from
channel

Indirect evidence
of potential for debris
transport and delivery

Upstream channel

Long straight or

geometry too small to

transport debris
Debris is absent after
floods in typical debris
accumulation sites
other than bridges
Negligible debris
delivered to a site
following major events
Debris in the channel
remains in place
following floods
because of low flow
velocities

slightly sinuous
reach upstream
Direct or
unobstructed
transport path
to bridge site

YES

Highly sinuous

reach upstream
Obstructed

transport path
to bridge site

Is it likely that
debris will be
delivered to the
bridge site during
subsequent
floods?

NO

LOW Potential for Debris Transport & Delivery

HIGH Potential for Debris Transport & Delivery

Estimate Size of the Largest Debris (Key Log Length) Potentially Delivered to Site

27

6. Bibliography
AASHTO.(2007).AASHTOTechnicalCommitteeonHydrologyandHydraulicsSpring2007Meeting
Minutes.(pp.1415).AmeliaIsland,FL:AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportation
Officials.
Anyi,M.,&Kirke,B.(2010,February22).Evaluationofsmallaxialflowhydrokineticturbinesforremote
communities.EnergyforSustainableDevelopment.
Anyi,M.,Kirke,B.,&Ali,S.(2010).RemotecommunityelectrificationinSarawak,Malaysia.Renewable
Energy,v35n7:16091613.
Beste,B.(2011,January12).AlaskaPowerandTelephoneRepresentative.(R.Tyler,Interviewer)
Bradley,J.,Richards,D.,&Bahner,C.(2005).DebrisControlStructuresEvaluationand
Countermeasures.Salem,OR:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation:FederalHighwayAdministration.
Chang,F.F.,&Shen,H.W.(1979).Debrisproblemsintheriverenvironment.FederalHighway
Administration.
Daly,S.(2010,December28).ResearchHydraulicEngineerattheUSArmyColdRegionsResearchand
EngineeringLaboratory.(R.Tyler,Interviewer)
Haehnel,R.B.,&Daly,S.F.(2002).MaximumImpactForceofWoodyDebrisonFloodplainStructures.
Hanover,NH:ArmyCorpsofEngineersEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter.
HandsOn:TheEarthReport.(2004).TheRiverRunsThroughIt(Report2of5).www.TVE.org.
HydroComponentSystems.(2007).HydroComponentSystemsTrashRakerPhotos.RetrievedJanuary
15,2011,fromHydroComponentSystems:
http://www.hydrocomponentsystems.com/photo_gallery/trash_raker/
HydroGreenEnergy,LLC.(2010).HydroGreenEnergy.RetrievedJanuary9,2011,from
www.hgenergy.com
Johnson,J.B.,&Pride,D.J.(2010).River,Tidal,andOceanCurrentHydrokineticEnergyTechnologies:
StatusandFutureOpportunitiesinAlaska.Fairbanks,AK:AlaskaCenterforEnergyandPower.
Kirke,B.(2010,November7).AdjunctSeniorResearchFellow,UniveristyofSouthAustralia.(R.Tyler,
Interviewer)
Lagasse,P.C.(2010).EffectsofDebrisonBridgePierScour(NCHRPReport653).Washington,D.C.:
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram.
Lewin,J.(1995).Hydraulicgatesandvalvesinfreesurfaceflowandsubmergedoutlets.NewYork,NY:
ThomasTelford.

28

Lyn,D.A.,Cooper,T.J.,Condon,C.A.,&Gan,L.(2007).FactorsinDebrisAccumulationatBridgePiers.
WestLafayette,IN:PurdueePubs.
Oppenheimer,M.L.,&Saunders,S.(1995).PatentNo.5,839,853.UnitedStatesofAmerica.
RedRiverwoodydebrisandpredatoravoidance.RedRiver,Manitoba.(2007,October5).Retrieved
January22,2011,fromYouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd6z8zNM5hQ&feature=related
Saunders,S.,&Oppenheimer,M.L.(1993).Amethodofmanagingfloatingdebris.HydraulicEngineering
'93:Proceedingsofthe1993Conference(pp.13731378).NewYork,NY:TheAmericanSocietyofCivil
Engineers.
Sexon,B.(2010,November11).ThroptonEnergyRepresentative.(R.Tyler,Interviewer)
Syamalarao,B.(1989).Areviewoftrashrackfailuresandrelatedinvestigations.Water&Dam
Construction.
Taylor,T.(2010,November13).VerdantPower,Inc.Representative.(R.Tyler,Interviewer)
Thompson,R.(2010,December16).LessonsLearnedfromTurbineProject.NorthernNewsService:Deh
ChoDrum,pp.34.
Wallerstein,N.,&Thorne,C.(1995).DebrisControlatHydraulicStructuresinSelectedAreasofEurope.
Nottingham,England:UniversityofNottingham,DepartmentofGeography.
YukonRiverInterTribalWatershedCouncil.(2008).YRITWCEnergy.RetrievedJanuary9,2011,from
YRITWCWebsite:http://www.yritwc.org/Departments/Energy.aspx
Zowski,T.(1960,SeptemberandOctober).Trashrackandrakingequipment.WaterPower.

29