US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Portable Floating Fish Collector (PFFC)

Sean Askelson

Chris Budai - PM

Kristy Fortuny - TL

Dave Griffith

Todd Pierce

Greg Taylor

HDR, Cherokee,

USGS

FEB 2015

“WE”

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT2

PFFC Overview

Information for Cougar Downstream Passage Schedule

► Design► Construction

Facility Overview Proximity to Tower Depth of FCM

Hydraulic Tuning Settings

Vibration

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT3

PFFC-Information for Downstream Passage

We have a surface route at Cougar (temperature weirs)

We know the PFFC is small, but…► Looking at % fish in PFFC flow net, compare to % fish

captured► Looking at how that ratio changes when we operate at

lower flows► Could help narrow down fish outmigration timing?

We are learning on a small scale facility

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT4

PFFC-Schedule Engineering Design Report DEC-2011

► Anticipated Final Plans and Specs APR-2012► Anticipated Operational by SEP-2012

No DDR. Straight to Plans and Specs Started Plans and Specs APR-2012 Finalized Plans and Specs OCT-2012 Construction Awarded APR-2013 Facility was Operational 28-MAR-2014

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT5

PFFC-Facility Design Goals120 cfs total capacity

50 cfs half capacity

adjustable bypass Q

FLOW

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT6

PFFC-Facility Plan View of Screens

8 Dewatering Bays Bypass Control

8’-1

0”

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT7

PFFC-FacilityProfile View of Screens

8 Dewatering Bays Bypass Control

10’-

6”

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT8

PFFC-Proximity to Tower

Due to anchorage limitations, the installed PFFC was ~150-ft from the Temperature Tower

The PFFC did not intercept the flow into the tower wet well► Potential to miss fish following the flow towards tower

The PFFC could not rotate “into” the flow due to anchorage constraints► Less than ideal entrance hydraulics

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT9

PFFC-Proximity to Tower

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT10

PFFC- Depth of Flow Control Module FCM was too low in water Bypass flow was too high (energy dissipation)

8’

Too Much Q

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT11

Photo: T. Pierce

Ramp

Weir

Flume

We designed and installed interim remedy measures► Weir/ramp – controls

bypass flow► Flume – improves

fish safety/handling

PFFC - FCM

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT12

PFFC-VibrationFloor Screen

Actuator

Fixed Panel

Adjustable Panel

HSS Guide

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT13

Hydraulic TuningData collected and summarized by USGS, Cook, Washington.

50% Capacity

85% Capacity

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT14

Hydraulic TuningData collected and summarized by USGS, Cook, Washington.

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Ve

locity (

ft/s

)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

LowHigh

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25G

rad

ient (f

ps/ft)

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Distance from entrance (ft)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Acce

lera

tio

n (

ft/s

2)

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

50% Capacity

85% Capacity

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT15

PFFC-Operations in 2014 Not close enough to the tower Not aligned with flow lines approaching tower FCM too low

► Weir/Ramp to control bypass flows► Lower than optimal approach velocity► Did not reach capture velocity

Lower “high discharge” than desired Confirm velocity gradient through facility We learned a lot on a small scale facility!

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT16

Closer to wet well and ability to rotate into flow

PFFC – Revised Proximity to Tower

BUILDING STRONG®

PORTLAND DISTRICT17

PFFC- Additional Improvements for 2015

Raising the FCM in the water column► Allows use of ballast to adjust depth► Remove the weir/ramp: allows the constrictor panels

to control bypass flow► Better hydraulic transition from screen to bypass► Less entrance depth @ same flow = higher velocities

Stiffened the porosity panels (minimize vibration)► Allow to operate at upper end of design range

More flow into facility = higher approach velocity