Applications of the Discrete-Bubble Model for Turbine Aeration Systems

Richard J. Ruane, Reservoir Environmental Management, Inc, 900-5 Vine Street,

Chattanooga, TN 37403 jimruane@comcast.net

Daniel F. McGinnis, Surface Waters - Research and Management, Swiss Federal

Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, CH-6047 Kastanienbaum,
Switzerland dan.mcginnis@eawag.ch

ABSTRACT
Turbine venting is the most common aeration approach for increasing dissolved oxygen
(DO) in the releases from hydropower turbine systems. However, the performance and
predictability of these systems has been a challenge to owner-operators, turbine
vendors, and environmental regulatory agencies. This challenge has increased since
the concern for total dissolved gases (TDGs) has evolved. In addition, compliance with
water quality requirements under 401 Certificates has increased the need for better
ways to assess quantitatively the performance of these systems.

Experience with the Discrete-Bubble Model (DBM) on other aeration systems used for
water resource issues led the authors to develop this model for application to turbine
aeration systems. The first application was for Saluda Project (South Carolina Electric
& Gas [SCE&G], South Carolina. This application involved two uses: 1) to simulate DO
for hourly operations for representative hydrologic years to provide input to a fish growth
model for developing a site-specific DO standard; 2) to develop lookup tables for
operators so they can operate the five turbine units to provide the optimal DO in the
tailrace as a function of incoming DO levels, temperature, and flow through the project.
The DBM was calibrated using aeration test data from the Saluda turbine units.

Since that time, the DBM has been used at 13 additional hydro projects for a variety of
applications: to estimate the airflow required in a draft tube to increase DO using a
compressor; to estimate the DO increase at several projects where airflows were
known; to provide input for the design of draft tubes for new replacement units; to
predict the aeration performance of aerating wheels given the airflow provided by
turbine vendors; to simulate hourly DO in the tailraces of nine hydro plants for periods of
five to seven years and predict the performance of the aeration systems for developing
recommendations for water quality compliance under agreements being developed
under 401 Certificates; and to predict DO levels for potential enhancements to turbine
venting systems, i.e., the benefits of adding hub baffles to turbines.

This paper focuses on an application at the Saluda Project.

1
Introduction
In recent years the discrete bubble model (DBM) has been successfully applied to
several aeration systems, so the authors applied it to turbine venting systems (McGinnis
and Ruane, 2007 same proceedings). The DBM accounts for bubble size in addition to
the variables accounted for in previous first-order gas transfer models (Sheppard et al.,
1981; Quigley and Boyle, 1976; Wilhelms et al., 1987).

Recent developments regarding hydropower projects have led to the need for
advancing aeration modeling capabilities of turbine venting systems.
1. Regulatory requirements by some State agencies are calling for better predictive
capability for the performance of turbine venting systems.
2. Power losses are caused by some turbine venting systems, so project owners
desire better predictive tools to operate more efficiently and still attain DO
objectives.
3. Alternative aeration systems are usually more expensive, so predicting and
achieving peak aeration performance of turbine venting systems for attaining DO
objectives is important to consider in place of or in combination with alternatives.
4. Total dissolved gases (TDGs) are a concern in some tailwaters, creating the
need for the prediction of TDG levels in these hydropower releases.
5. Some hydropower projects are being upgraded with new aerating wheels that
can draw much more air into their draft tubes. For these cases, owners often
need the best available predictions for the amount of DO uptake that will be
attained.
6. Site-specific stream water quality standards for DO can be a consideration for
some tailwaters, and the capability to predict future exposure conditions of fish to
DO is an important part of establishing better DO standards.
7. Lookup tables and operational monitors and controls for aeration systems are
being considered for responding to regulatory requirements

The first DBM applications to turbine aeration systems were for the Saluda Project near
Columbia, SC. These applications included predicting DO in the turbine releases
considering various turbine venting alternatives, setting up and running the models to
predict hourly concentrations of DO in an operational mode over representative
hydrologic years, and developing lookup tables for operators to use for aerating the
releases from the project using the current turbine venting system. The operational
runs using various aeration alternatives were used to assist in developing a site-specific
water quality standard for DO in the Lower Saluda River (LSR) downstream from the
Saluda Project.

SCE&G decided to develop a site-specific standard for DO for the LSR when the SC
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) proposed a DO standard
of a minimum of 6.0 mg/L for a trout put, grow, and take designation. Exposure of trout
and other aquatic life to DO concentrations in the LSR that occur downstream from the
Saluda Project is an important consideration for developing a site-specific water quality
standard. Accordingly, the frequency and duration of DO levels that would occur hourly
downstream from the Saluda Project under various hypothetical aeration alternatives

2
were predicted using the DBM. The site-specific studies led to SCDHEC approving the
following DO standard: minimum DO, 4 mg/L; minimum daily average, 5 mg/L; and
minimum 30-day average DO, 5.5 mg/L.

Background
The Saluda Project impounds Lake Murray which has a maximum depth of 175 feet,
and the volume of the lake is 2,118,000 ac-ft. The lake is approximately 41 miles long
and has a maximum width of 14 miles. The Project has five turbines with a total power
capacity of about 200 MW. Units 1-4 have a maximum discharge of about 3150 cfs
each, and Unit 5 has a maximum discharge of about 5700 cfs. The intakes for Units 1-4
are near the bottom of the lake, and the intake for Unit 5 is about 80 feet deep. The
average annual flow at Saluda Hydro is 2683 cfs, and the maximum turbine discharge is
about 18,000 cfs. The primary use of the Saluda Project is for reserve generation.

In 1996, turbine venting was chosen as the best approach to increase DO in the
releases from the Saluda Project. In 1997, SCE&G installed larger air supply pipes to
allow more air to be drawn in by the units. In 1997 and 1998, SCE&G implemented and
conducted field studies on the turbine venting system to develop an operational
approach to improve DO conditions in the LSR. This turbine venting aeration system
primarily included air supply increases on units 1-4 and operational changes for the
units to enhance aeration. These procedures increased DO significantly in the LSR
when flows through Saluda Hydro were less than about 6000-7000 cfs, and these
increases in DO were less as flows increased to maximum levels. Figure 1 shows the
DO concentrations during 1999.

In 2002, SCE&G installed hub baffles on Unit 5, and these have been in operation since
2003. In 2005, SCE&G installed hub baffles on the original four units. Figure 2 shows
how DO in releases from Unit 1 was further improved with hub baffles in 2005.

High DO increases at low gate settings for turbines are not unusual; but, the ability to
operate at low gate settings for a high percentage of time without significantly impacting
project purposes is unusual. This unique feature at the Saluda Project is explained by:
1. The relatively high turbine flow capacity (and corresponding generation capacity)
compared to the average annual flow; and
2. The high degree of use of the hydroturbines for meeting reserve generation
commitments and the relatively low amount of use for peaking generation.

3
 1999-Saluda River 2500 yards below Saluda Dam

14
Hourly data
Daily average
12

10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

0
1/1 1/31 3/3 4/2 5/3 6/2 7/3 8/2 9/2 10/2 11/2 12/2
Date

Figure 1. DO concentrations in 1999 after the larger air supply pipes were installed
and operation of the aeration system was implemented

Saluda Project - Unit 1

Test of October 3-4, 2005
7 w/ aeration-2005

w/o aeration-2005
6
w/ aeration and two additional units
operating-2005
5 w/ aeration-1997

4
DO, mg/l

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Flow, cfs

Figure 2. Results of hub baffles on aeration of Unit 1, shown with 1997 aeration results
before hub baffles were added

4
Physical Features and Saluda Operations
Saluda Project key features that influence the effectiveness of turbine venting
operations include the following.
Turbine unit characteristics
Tailwater evaluation (TWE) during turbine releases
Saluda Project operations
Annual hydrology
Pertinent turbine characteristics include the elevation of the turbines in comparison to
the TWE and the lengths and elevations of the draft tubes. Generally, when turbine
elevation is higher than TWE, more air can be drawn into the draft tube below the
turbine. Also, when the draft tube is longer and deeper, the air can add more DO to the
water since the air has more contact time with the water and the pressures are greater.
Figure 3 shows elevations of the turbines, as well as lengths and elevations of the draft
tubes, for Units 1-4 and Unit 5, respectively. Figure 4 shows the pressure-time
characteristics of the draft tubes for Saluda Hydro.

Turbine elevation for Units 1-4 is 185.0 ft, and turbine elevation for Unit 5 is 181.5 ft.
TWE varies from elevation 171 ft to 184 ft. At high flows when TWE is higher than
181.5 (i.e., when release from Saluda Hydro is about 13,000 cfs), the elevation of the
wheel for Unit 5 is lower than the tailwater. This shows that the capability of Unit 5 to
draw air when flows are high is more limited than for Units 1-4. For normal operations,
the turbine wheels for Units 1-4 are about 10 ft higher than the TWE; however, when
release from Saluda Hydro is near its peak (about 18,000 cfs), the elevation of these
units is only about 1 ft over the TWE.

Operational Predictions of DO in the Releases from the Saluda Project for Various
Turbine Venting Alternatives2003
River flows and DO conditions in tailwaters like that below the Saluda Project are highly
variable compared to natural rivers for which DO standards are normally applied.
Therefore, to understand exposure of fish to DO in the LSR, it was important to simulate
DO in the releases from the Saluda Project as a function of hydro operations.

To determine the exposure of trout to DO under alternative aeration conditions for the
releases from the Saluda Project, the DBM for turbine aeration was developed to predict
release DO for the following cases:
1. 2003 aeration practices using 10-inch air supply pipes;
2. 2003 aeration practices plus the hypothetical addition of hub baffles (Carter,
1995);
3. Installation of hypothetical new aerating turbine wheels (auto-venting turbines
[AVT]) (Hopping et al., 1997 and 1999);
4. AVT plus use of some supplemental aeration method that could provide a
minimum DO of 4 mg/L;
5. AVT plus use of some supplemental aeration method that could provide a
minimum DO of 6 mg/L.

5
 Centerline of
wheels: 185.0

Figure 3. Powerhouse cross-sections showing elevations and dimensions of the

turbines and draft tubes (peak tailrace elevation is about 184 ft above mean sea level)

6
 Pressure-Time Curves for the Draft Tubes of Units 1- 4

9 15
8 13
7 11
Travel time, sec

cumulative time through draft

Water depth, ft
6 9
tube at 1500 cfs, sec
5 7 cumulative time through draft
4 5 tube at 2500 cfs, sec
water depth, ft
3 3
2 1
1 -1
0 -3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Length along the draft tube, feet

Pressure-Time Curves for the Draft Tube of Unit 5

20 36
19
18 32
17
16 28
15
14 24
cumulative time through draft tube
13
Travel time, sec

Water depth, ft

at 1500 cfs, sec

12 20
11 cumulative time through draft tube
10 16 at 2500 cfs, sec
9 cumulative time through draft tube
8 12 at 5500 cfs, sec
7
water depth, ft
6 8
5
4 4
3
2 0
1
0 -4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Length along the draft tube, feet

Figure 4. Pressure-time curves for Units 1-4 and Unit 5

Supplemental strategies that were necessary when hub baffles or AVT could not
provide the targeted DO levels in the releases for this study were not determined.

A range of hydrologic years was considered, since this significantly affects hydropower
operations that, in turn, affect downstream tailwater DO; e.g., in wet years, there could
be more generation resulting in the tailwater being exposed to more frequent low DO
conditions.

7
Model Development and Calibration
With the use of any models it should be recognized that modeling results provide a
general indicator of what is likely to occur under given sets of conditions. As is the case
in all aquatic environments, actual conditions are more complex than models, so models
reproduce the major patterns that are observed in the field; but, they may lack
resolution, inputs, or formulations to reproduce all the minor patterns that are observed.
Models are internally consistent and based on rigorous governing equations, so they
can often help explain apparent discrepancies in field observations. Model results for
this application are scientifically sound and can be used for simulating water quality in
the releases from the Saluda Project within the conditions and constraints presented
herein.

Discrete-Bubble Model
A DBM that predicts the rate of oxygen transfer in diffused-bubble systems was applied
to a draft-tube system and tailrace to simulate the effects of turbine venting at the
Saluda Project. Key inputs were the water flow rate through the turbine, the airflow rate,
the initial bubble size, and inflow temperature and DO. The model accounts for
changes in the volume of individual bubbles due to transfer of oxygen and nitrogen (and
hence changing partial pressure), variation in hydrostatic pressure, and changes in
temperature. The bubble-rise velocity and mass-transfer coefficient, both known
functions of the bubble diameter, are continually adjusted (See McGinnis and Ruane,
2007 same proceedings).

Program for Predicting DO in Releases from Saluda Hydro

The DBM was calibrated for each unit at Saluda Hydro, and, then, the individual unit
models were programmed using FORTRAN to integrate the effects of all the units so
that DO could be predicted for the total plant releases.

The model predicts DO using the following inputs:

1. 15-minute flow data from the USGS gage located below the dam;
2. Temperature and DO of the water entering the turbines;
3. 15-minute TWE data;
4. An assumed operating policy for Saluda Project units to optimize aeration of the
releases.

The unit flow data were used to estimate the amount of air that was drawn into the units,
as well as to route the water through the draft tubes where gas transfer was predicted
by the model as a function of the time of contact between the bubbles and the water
and the pressure to which the bubbles and water were exposed.

Model Calibration
The model was calibrated using the draft tube geometry for Units 1-4 and Unit 5 and
test data collected in 1997 and 1998 to measure DO uptake through the individual units
over the full range of turbine operating conditions. Figure 5 shows results of the model
calibrations for DO versus flow for each unit. These figures show that Units 1, 2, and 4

8
produced greater DO increases than Units 3 and 5. Units 1, 2, and 4 have the
advantage of sitting higher over the TWE than Unit 5, and they aspirated relatively
greater amounts of air into the units over the whole range of TWEs.

Since airflow data were not collected on individual units when more than two units were
operating, the model could not be developed to predict DO as a function of airflow for
operations involving more than two units. To overcome this problem, the model for
predicting the DO in the release from each unit was developed to predict airflow as a
function of turbine release, which in turn was used to predict DO in the releases using
the DBM. The models for each unit were calibrated to predict DO at low and moderate
flows using the results of the studies during single unit operations, but were calibrated to
predict DO at high flows (i.e., greater than about 80 % gate) using the results of the
studies during multiple unit operations.

The output from the program was validated against actual operating conditions for the
year 2000. Figure 6 shows how the model matched the data at the USGS monitor
located below Saluda Dam. This figure shows that the model closely simulated the DO
when flows exceeded approximately 6000 cfs and when DO was less than about 5
mg/L.

The DO at the USGS gage was occasionally higher than the model prediction due to
photosynthetic activity by aquatic macrophytes in the tailrace, as well as the effects of
wind on aerationnotice that these effects occurred when flow was low. Also,
occasionally, the measured DO was less than the predicted DO for brief periods. This
was attributed to the Saluda turbines not being operated in an optimized manner for
aeration at all times, e.g., the operator may not have used more than one unit to operate
the plant and increase DO by using less flow through each unit. [Note: In 2003, SCE&G
operators started operating the turbine venting system in a more optimized manner.]

Operating Policies Used for Modeling the Effects of the Current Aeration System
on DO at Saluda Hydro
The following hypothetical operating policies were used in the model to optimize
aeration by selecting the units that would be operated and at what flow rates. Actual
operations were not optimized as assumed below, but operators generally attempted to
operate in a manner similar to the following policy.

If peak flow is Then operate Unit(s):

anticipated to be:
<1400 cfs 1
1400-2400 cfs 1+4 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
2400-3400 cfs 1+4+2 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
3400-4000 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
4000-5000 cfs 1+4+2+3+5 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
5000-7000 cfs 1 (60% gate) + 4 (50% gate) + 2 (50% gate) + 3 (35% gate) +
5 (20% gate)
7000-10,500 cfs 1 (50% gate) + 4 (50% gate) + 2 (50% gate) + 5 (72% gate)
10,500-12,500 cfs 1 (70% gate) + 4 (70% gate) + 2 (70% gate) + 5 (72% gate)
>12,500 cfs 1-4 (100% gate) + 5 (72% gate)

9
 7
Unit 1
6 Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
5 Unit 1-data
Unit 2-data
DO (mg/L)

4 Unit 3-data
Unit 4-data
3

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Flowrate (cfs)

5
4
DO, mg/L

3 Predicted
DO: Unit 5
2
1 Measured
DO
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Flowrate, cfs

Figure 5. Results of the model calibration for DO versus flow for Units 1-4 and Unit 5

Prediction Of DO Conditions in the Tailrace

The calibrated model was then used to simulate the DO conditions in the tailrace for the
following conditions.
1. 1990 (wet year with special drawdown, as well as the occurrence of a hurricane);
1992 (year with average flow and normal operations on Lake Murray); 1996
(average flow year with special drawdown); and 1999 (year with low flow and
normal operations at the Saluda Project)
2. 15-minute DO conditions in the tailrace were predicted for each of these years so
that fish growth could be simulated over the whole year (year-round temperature
conditions were provided by the USGS monitor located 2500 ft downstream from
the powerhouse)

10
 11

10
Predicted DO
9 USGS DO

7
DO, mg/L

2-Oct

3-Oct

4-Oct

5-Oct

6-Oct
1-Oct

7-Oct

8-Oct
24-Sep

25-Sep

26-Sep

27-Sep

28-Sep

29-Sep

30-Sep
2000

20000

15000
Discharge, cfs

10000

5000

0
1-Oct

4-Oct

7-Oct
2-Oct

3-Oct

5-Oct

6-Oct

8-Oct
24-Sep

25-Sep

26-Sep

27-Sep

28-Sep

29-Sep

30-Sep

2000

Figure 6. Turbine aeration model predictions for releases from Saluda Hydro compared
to data from the USGS monitor downstream from the dam

3. Current aeration system as of 2002

4. Current aeration system plus the addition of hub baffles
5. Installation of new aerating turbine wheels (AVT)
6. AVT plus use of some supplemental aeration method that could provide a
minimum DO of 4 mg/L
7. AVT plus use of some supplemental aeration method that could provide a
minimum DO of 6 mg/L

Optimized operating policies were developed for each turbine venting aeration scenario;
i.e., for the 1999 aeration system, the system with hub baffles added, and for the AVT
systems.

Predictions for Performance of Hub Baffles and AVT

The model predictions for using hub baffles assumed 65 scfs airflow across all gate
settings for Units 1-4 and 40 scfs airflow across all gate settings for Unit 5. The model
predictions for using AVT assumed the following airflows for Units 1-4:
1. 100 scfs airflow up to 1900 cfs water flow;

11
 2. 100 to 120 scfs airflow from 1900 to 2400 cfs water flow;
3. 120 to 130 scfs from 2400 to 2700 cfs;
4. 130 scfs to 3000 cfs;
5. then, airflow down to 100 scfs at 3200 cfs water flow.
For Unit 5 the AVT model assumed 80 scfs airflow across all gates.

Operating Policies Used for Modeling the Effects of Hub Baffles on Aeration at
the Saluda Project
The following operating policies were used in the model to optimize aeration with hub
baffles added by selecting the units that would be operated at various total project flow
rates. It was assumed that Units 1-4 could be altered so that they had the same
aeration characteristics, so optimization was not needed for the selection of the most
optimal units between Units 1-4.

If peak flow is Then operate Unit(s):

anticipated to be:
<1100 cfs 1
1100-2200 cfs 1+4 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
2200-3300 cfs 1+4+2 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
3300-7200 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
7200-11,200 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit and Unit 5 at 1200 cfs
11,200-12,500 cfs 1+4+2+3 with 2500 cfs for each unit and Unit 5 at 2500 cfs
>12,500 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit and Unit 5 at 2500 cfs
up to 15,300 cfs, then increase flow in Unit 5 up to maximum flow

Operating Policies Used for Modeling the Effects of AVT on Aeration at the
Saluda Project
The following operating policies were used in the model to optimize aeration using AVT
by selecting the units that would be operated at various total project flow rates. It was
assumed that Units 1-4 could be altered so that they had the same aeration
characteristics, so optimization was not needed for the selection of the most optimal
units between Units 1-4.

If peak flow is Then operate Unit(s):

anticipated to be:
<1300 cfs 1
1300-2600 cfs 1+4 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
2600-3900 cfs 1+4+2 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
3900-10,000 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit
10,000-11,200 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit and Unit 5 at 1200 cfs
11,200-13,700 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit and Unit 5 at 1200 cfs
up to a total project flow of 13,200 cfs and then increase flow in Unit 5
up to 1700 cfs
>13,700 cfs 1+4+2+3 with equal amounts of flow for each unit and Unit 5 at 1700 cfs
up to 14,500 cfs, then increase flow in Unit 5 up to maximum flow

12
Model Predictions for Use in the LSR Water Quality Model and the FISH Model
The model was then ready for predicting DO conditions in the tailwater for the range of
aeration scenarios listed above. Since fish grow all year, model runs were made for the
entire year. Model results were summarized in plots like Figure 7. These results
summarized DO conditions using the following DO metrics:
1. Minimum daily DO;
2. The moving 7-day average of the minimum daily DO;
3. Daily average DO;
4. The moving 7-day average of the DO;
5. The moving 30-day average of the DO.
The results of the various turbine aeration model runs were used as inputs for the
bioenergetic model runs.

Figure 8 presents the frequency of exposure for fish to DO conditions below the Saluda
Project for actual conditions over the years 1989 through 2000 (Note: Results for 2001
and 2002 would be similar to conditions for 1999 and 2000), as well as for the years
1992 and 1999 with predicted conditions for new aerating turbines as well as with the
DO minimum set to 4 mg/L. The frequency plot includes only the period when DO is
generally lowest during the year. This figure shows how dramatically DO improved
during the years 1999-2000, as well as how well DO would be increased using the
aeration alternatives plotted.

Conclusions
The DBM was successfully used to predict hourly DO levels for several representative
years of hydrologic conditions for the LSR downstream from the Saluda Project. These
predictions also included the performance of hypothetical future aeration scenarios.
The results were presented in the form of several DO metrics and frequency of
exceedence plots. This information was used to help attain a site-specific DO standard
for the LSR that was protective of the designated use which is a trout put, grow, and
take fishery and saved millions of dollars in potential future aeration costs.

The DBM has since been used for various other purposes at the following projects:
10 hydro plants included in the Duke Power Catawba-Wateree Project; the Osage
Project owned by Ameren Union Electric; Brownlee Hydro owned by Idaho Power
Company; and Swinging Bridge Hydro owned by Mirant-NY.

13
 14
12
10
DO (mg/L)

8
6
15-min DO
4 7-day mov avg DO
30-day mov avg DO
2
0
29-Feb 30-Mar 29-Apr 29-May 28-Jun 28-Jul 27-Aug 26-Sep 26-Oct 25-Nov 25-Dec
Day of 1996

14

12
10
DO (mg/L)

6 max daily DO
avg daily DO
4 min daily DO
2 7-day mov avg of daily max DO
7-day mov avg of daily min DO
0
29-Feb 30-Mar 29-Apr 29-May 28-Jun 28-Jul 27-Aug 26-Sep 26-Oct 25-Nov 25-Dec
Day of 1996

Figure 7. Summary of DO metrics from a model run for the year 1996 assuming that
new aerating turbines were installed and some supplemental aeration system was used
to maintain a minimum DO of 4 mg/L

References

Carter, James C. Jr. (1995), Recent Experience with Turbine Venting at TVA. ASCE
WaterPower 95 Proceedings, ed. John J. Cassidy, San Francisco, CA.
Hopping, Paul N., et al. (1999), Justifying, Specifying, and Verifying Performance of
Aerating Turbines. ASCE Waterpower '99 Proceedings, ed. Peggy Brookshier, Las
Vegas, NV.
Hopping, Paul N., et al. (1997), Update on Development of Autoventing Turbine
Technology. ASCE WaterPower 97. D.J. Mahoney, Atlanta, GA.
Quigley, J.T., and W.C. Boyle (1976), Modeling of vented hydroturbine reaeration,
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 48, No. 2, 357-366.
Sheppard, A.R., D.E. Miller, and C.L. Buck (1981), Prediction of Oxygen Uptake in
Hydroelectric Draft Tube Aeration Systems, Proceedings of the ASCE
Environmental Engineering Division Specialty Conference, July 1981, 644-651.
Wilhelms, S.C., et al. (1987), Improvement of Hydropower Release Dissolved Oxygen
with Turbine Venting. Technical Report E-87-3, Department of the Army, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

14
 Percent of Time that Various Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Would be Exceeded in Saluda Hydro Tailwater - for the Low DO
Period (7/1 - 11/15)
14
Before aeration
1999-2000 Before hub baffles
12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

1992 Assumed AVT conditions

1992 Assumed AVT w ith minimum DO = 4
10 1999 Assumed AVT conditions

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Exceedence

Figure 8. Percent exceedence curves for DO for various aeration conditions

Authors

Richard J. (Jim) Ruane is President of Reservoir Environmental Management, Inc, a

consulting firm that focuses on water quality assessments, modeling, and management
of large reservoirs, primarily hydropower reservoirs. Jim was previously employed at
TVA until 1994. He has worked on over 110 reservoirs. He develops and applies
computer models on lakes, aeration systems, and rivers. He has worked on aeration
systems for over 70 hydropower projects.

Daniel F. McGinnis is a postdoctoral researcher in the aquatic physics group at Eawag

(Switzerland). Research includes the study and modeling of physical processes in
lakes, bubbles and plumes, sediment-water exchange and gas transfer. Doctorate
research at Virginia Tech involved the development and coupling of bubble-plume
models with state-of-the-art hydrodynamic and water quality models to optimize the
design and operation of bubble plume diffuser systems. Daniel is also a part time
consultant with Reservoir Environmental Mgt., Inc. and Mobley Engineering, Inc.

15