Crucial Role of Physical Modeling in Developing the Configuration of the Intake

Headwork Structures

Nancy Sims Associate1, Don Murray Discipline Practice Lead - Hydrotechnical2,

Amir Alavi Hydrotechnical Engineer2, and Brian Hughes Principal1
1
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Canada,2 Hatch Ltd., Canada,

Abstract

Understanding the natural sediment transport behavior contributed to the effective

design and operation of the intake headwork structures for AltaGass 195 MW run-of-
river Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project located on the Iskut River in northwestern BC,
Canada. The Iskut River system carries a significant sediment load during the high flow
season. The intake headwork structures had to be hydraulically designed to divert the
heavy sediment load away from the power intake and direct the design flow into the
power tunnel at the location of a major bend in the river channel.

The physical hydraulic model investigated the interaction of the hydraulic flow
characteristics with sediment flow patterns. A range of river discharges and numerous
design alternatives were investigated to determine the behavior of the flow as it entered
the sluiceway approach channel. Ultimately, a solution was found whereby a box
culvert was installed along the invert of the channel to extract the majority of the
sediment bedload. The remaining flow was directed to an intermediate forebay through
a desanding basin for settling and bypassing the finer, suspended sediments.

The authors contend that without the aid of the physical hydraulic model studies, the
performance of the intake headwork structure would have jeopardized the operation of
the hydroelectric facility. Funding for the engineering design and hydraulic model
studies was provided by the owner, AltaGas Ltd.

Project Description

The Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project is a 195 MW capacity run-of-river hydroelectric

generation plant located on the Iskut River in northwestern British Columbia as shown
on Figure 1. The main project facilities consist of a water intake and diversion structure,
power tunnel, underground powerhouse, tailrace tunnel, associated electrical substation
and transmission infrastructure, and on-site operating and maintenance facilities. The
project will operate at a net head of 86 m and a design flow of 252 m3/s.

The diversion structure will comprise a concrete weir approximately 10 m high, with two
10 m long by 5 m high Obermeyer gate sections, a gated sluiceway with a 6 m wide by
7 m high radial gate, and a riparian flow conduit with a minimum downstream flow
release capability of 10 m3/s.

Figure 1 - Project Location

Flow from the Iskut River will be diverted to a sluiceway channel located on the left side
of the river; the discharge through this channel will be controlled by the Obermeyer
gates at the weir and the setting of the sluiceway gate. Flow will be further diverted to
the powerhouse through the forebay control structure and intake structure located on
the left side of the sluiceway channel. The forebay control structure will contain a set of
trashracks to prevent large debris and bounders from entering into the forebay channel.
The forebay channel will contain a sediment extraction channel which is designed to
further remove sediments from the flow and which will be flushed back into the
sluiceway discharge channel.

Water from the forebay channel will enter 9.6 m diameter, 3.15 km long drill and blast
power tunnel through an intake structure. A vertical gate will be provided which can be
closed to permit unwatering of the tunnel for inspection or repair.

The power tunnel will convey the diverted water to an underground powerhouse
containing nine 21.7 MW horizontal Francis turbines and associated generation and
control equipment. The project will develop approximately 96 m of gross head (~86 m
of net head) between the normal operating level at the intake and typical tailwater
levels. The powerhouse will be of the arched roof rock-cavern type, with a length of
144 m and a width of 17 m.

After passing through the power tunnel manifold and valves, the flow will pass through
wicket gates which control the amount of flow into the turbine spiral case, onto the
turbine runners and through the turbine discharge ring. The water will then pass
through the draft tube water passages and return the flow to the Iskut River via a 300 m
long tailrace manifold and tunnel.

Project Design Basis

The project site is located in the eastern portion of the Coast Mountains and has a
watershed area of 6,820 km2. The watershed topography is relatively steep and
rugged, and permanent snow and ice fields exist at higher elevations in the basins
headwaters. The annual precipitation in the basin is roughly 1800 mm per year.
Photo 1 shows an aerial view of the project area, before the onset of construction.

The annual hydrograph, as shown on Figure 2, at the intake site, is dominated by snow
and glacier melt in the late spring and summer. Flows are lowest in the winter, reaching
their minimum in February and March, and then begin to rise in response to snowmelt in
April. Mean monthly flows decline in the autumn, but the largest floods can also occur
at this time in response to frontal rainstorms. The approximate distribution of flow
between the Iskut River and the Forrest Kerr Creek at the influence is approximately
90%-10%, respectively.

The Iskut River transports a large sediment load, ranging from clay-sized sediments to
boulders. In most reaches of the river, the suspended load consists of sand, silt and
clay, while gravel, cobbles and boulders travel as bedload. In the reach of the
headworks, which is characterized by steep canyon walls and a narrow river section,
the turbulent conditions, eddies and upwelling flows cause relatively coarse material to
be entrained into suspension at higher flows. The annual suspended load of fine
sediment (less than 2 mm) has been estimated to be in the order of 6.4 x 106
tonnes/year with an average bedload transport rate of 0.85 x 106 tonnes/year.

 IskutRiver

ForrestKerrCreek

Photo 1 - Project Area, Pre-Construction

DesignDischarge=252m3/s

Figure 2 - Average Daily Flow at the Intake

Sediment load at the headworks site varies from near zero during low winter flows to
high values during the spring-summer snowmelt period and during autumn rainstorm
events, as shown on Figure 3. Much of this material is too fine to be trapped by
sediment excluding facilities incorporated into the headworks so it will be ingested with
the diverted flows. It is anticipated that suspension of coarse material through the reach
during high flow events will not be substantially altered following construction of the
headworks. Bedload through the sluiceway approach channel during high flows will
either settle out in the project forebay or be removed by the coarse sediment excluder
facilities. The specified trashrack grill openings of 50 mm will limit the maximum size of
particles from entering the intake forebay to 50 mm.

Figure 3 - Average Daily Sediment Loads at the Intake

Preliminary Design

The various structures that comprise the headworks are shown on Figure 4 and are
comprised of:
Power tunnel intake structure;
Forebay control structure and channel;
Sediment extraction channel and riparian flow conduit;
Sluiceway, approach and discharge channel; and
Control weir and Obermeyer gates.

 OBERMEYER
GATES

Figure 4 -General Arrangement (Feasibility)

The intake structure will provide a smooth transition of the flow from the approach
channel/forebay into the power tunnel. The intake structure forms the water passage
leading to the power tunnel. It will include a trashrack at the upstream end of the inlet
and a vertical lift gate designed for closure of the power tunnel at full flow.

The purpose of the forebay control structure is to divert all river flows equal to or less
than 262 m3/s, which is the maximum permitted diversion of 252 m3/s plus the riparian
flow of 10 m3/s, into the intake forebay channel. The riparian flow will be released into
the sluiceway discharge channel during power plant operation. River discharges
greater than 262 m3/s will be passed through the sluiceway and/or over the control weir.

The forebay control structure will be oriented parallel to the flow and be sized to operate
at a water velocity of approximately 1 m/s at its design discharge. The structure will
accommodate a total of eight intake passages furnished with fine screen trashracks.
The passages will also be furnished with stoplog slots to permit installation of stoplogs

to enable the dewatering of the immediate downstream forebay area between the
forebay channel structure and the power intake for repair and/or maintenance.

The sediment extraction facilities at the headworks consist of two main components: the
sluiceway on the upstream side of the forebay control structure; and, the sediment
extraction channel and riparian conduit in the forebay channel upstream of the power
tunnel intake.

The sluiceway structure at the downstream end of the sluiceway approach channel will
incorporate a radial gate. The structure has been placed immediately adjacent to the
downstream end of the forebay control structure to facilitate the passage of the bedload
material as it enters the headpond and, in particular, the sluiceway approach channel.
The sluiceway approach channel has been set below the invert of the forebay control
structure to prevent the larger bedload material from collecting immediately against the
trashracks. The sluiceway will also handle the Stage II river diversion during
construction of the weir and once the project is in operation, the radial gate will provide
additional spilling capacity to assist in passing the inflow design flood.

Downstream of the trashracks, the water velocity in the forebay channel will be limited
to approximately 1 m/s in order to facilitate the settling of the larger suspended material
before it reaches the raised concrete sill placed diagonally across the forebay channel.
This sill will vary in height and form the downstream side of a cross channel in the
forebay invert which will slope down towards the downstream side of the forebay. This
channel is called the sediment extraction channel. This channel will lead to the riparian
flow conduit, which will serve a dual purpose; one to flush the accumulation of fine
sediment from upstream of the sill and secondly, to provide a minimum riparian flow
downstream of the headworks at all times.

The weir will consist of a broad crested diversion structure with two Obermeyer gates to
create and maintain a headpond to provide adequate submergence and approach
conditions at the headworks. The weir will be designed to pass excess flood flows and
will allow river bed sediments and floating debris to pass over the structure.

Description of the Physical Model

A detailed comprehensive physical hydraulic model of the site area at the headworks
including all of the component structures was recommended in order to confirm/refine
the hydraulic design of the structures and channels. The physical model was used to
test the effectiveness of the configuration of all the structures while at the same time
maximizing the hydraulic efficiency of each structure to minimize the hydraulic losses for
power generation and to ensure the adequacy of the desilting and sediment sluicing
capability to minimize the entrainment of sediment into the power tunnel. A separate
1:20 scale sectional model study was conducted to develop the concept for flushing

sediment from within the forebay control structure. The sectional model will not be
discussed further in this current paper.

At an undistorted scale of 1:40, the comprehensive physical model was constructed to

reproduce the confluence of Forrest Kerr Creek with Iskut River, including
approximately 575 m of the Iskut River and approximately 225 m of the Forrest Kerr
Creek. The model scale was set sufficiently large to reproduce details of the intake
facilities, and diversion structures, allow accurate measurements of discharge rates and
velocities, and provide sufficient dimensional control. Photos 2 and 3 and Figure 5 show
the initial design installed in the model at the onsetof testing.

The model topography was based on a LiDAR survey. Synthetic bathymetric data was
developed for initial testing based on the results of a HEC-RAS numerical model and
review of site photographs during a low water event.The model topography was built as
a fixed surface using concrete and the riverbed sediments were represented using
geometrically-scaled sands and gravels placed in accordance with the estimated bed
profile. The banks of the model were roughened to approximate the estimated
roughness of the banks in the prototype (Mannings n-value of 0.07 to 0.08).Selection of
model sediment material was based on sediment samples collected in the field and site
photographs. A washed sand with a D10 of 0.18 mm, D50 of 0.48 mm and D90 of 2 mm
(model) - equivalent to a D10of 7 mm, D50of 19 mm, and D90 of 80 mm (prototype) - was
fed into the upstream end of the model at at a rate that approximated the estimated
loading rate in the prototype. Utilizing this sediment in the model should provide a good
indication of the behavior of the material expected in the prototype.

Scenarios Investigated

Initial Design Configuration

The intial design intake was located along the inside of a sharp 120-degree bend in the
Iskut River. Centrifugal effects at the bend force the surface flow to move along the right
bank opposite the intake; while at the same time near-bed flow moves toward the left
bank, where the intake will be located, carrying bed sediments with it. Initial design
testing was conducted to evaluate the general hydraulic performance of the initial
design approach channel and forebay control structure with the powerhouse operating.

Morphology testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the sluiceway

approach channel with sediment being continuously fed to the upstream end of the
model at a river discharge of 550 m3/s with the powerhouse operating at 252 m3/s.
Before the onset of the test, a submerged weir was placed near the upstream end of the
approach channel in an attempt to reduce the volume of sediment entering the
approach channel.

 Sluice
Gates

Approach
Channel
Intake
Structure
Obermeyer
Gates

Photo 2 View looking downstream
showing the model approach channel and
the Obermeyer gates in the fully inflated
position.
Photo 3 View looking upstream showing the
general arrangement of the model including
portions of Forrest Kerr Creek and Iskut River,
the intake structure, sluice gates and
Obermeyer gates.

Figure 5 Model Layout
9

While the test was intended to be operated over a duration of 24 hours (model) or
6.3 days (prototype), the approach channel and forebay control structure became
inundated with sediment after operating for only a few hours (model), as shown in
Photos 4 and 5.

Photo 4 -View looking Photo 5 -View looking upstream

downstream at the approach showing the sediment deposition in
channel at the conclusion of the the forebay control structure following
initial design test. the initial design testing.

These results initiated a series of tests and design refinements to identify an effective
sediment control design to remedy the inundation of the intake structure. The design
refinements included relocating the entrance of the sluiceway approach channel, adding
culverts within the sluiceway approach and discharge channels, refining the width and
shape of the sluiceway approach and discharge channels, and changing the planned
operational procedures.

Relocated Entrance of the Sluiceway Approach Channel

In order to avoid having the entrance located on the inside of a bend where sediment
deposition normally occurs, it was decided to relocate the entrance of the approach
channel to a location on the Iskut River, upstream of the confluence with Forrest Kerr
Creek. Figure 6 contains a sketch showing the modified approach channel entrance in
red.

10

 RelocatedApproach
ChannelEntrance

Figure 6Relocated Approach Channel Entrance Upstream of Confluence

The entrance to the revised approach channel was set at an elevation of El. 242.5 m. It
was envisioned that this elevation would be high enough to limit the amount of bedload
entering the approach channel and also to facilitate maintenance of the approach
channel during winter low flows (utilizing the Obermeyer gates to lower the water level
in the river).

Testing demonstrated that the relocated approach channel resulted in less sediment
entering the approach channel and improved flow conditions at the forebay control
structure. Testing indicated that the head losses (from the river upstream of the
Obermeyer weirs to the entrance of the tunnel portal) were approximately 1 m less than
those recorded for the initial design configuration. However, the momentum in the Iskut
River flow combined with the geometry of the left bank entrance resulted in flow
separation along the left side of the approach channel which generated sediment
deposition on the left half of the approach channel, as shown in Photo 6.

11

 Flow

Photo 6 - View looking downstream

showing the flow conditions entering the
approach channel at a river discharge of
1000 m3/s.

Addition of Culverts

Testing was conducted to evaluate the addition of a box culvert installed along the floor
of the approach channel in front of the forebay control structure in an attempt to convey
heavier bed load sediment through the approach channel and minimize the amount of
sediment entering the intake and forebay control structure, as shown in Photo 7. In
addition, a box culvert was also installed downstream of the sluice gate to convey
sediment through the discharge channel.

The addition of the box culvert was a significant improvement in bypassing bedload
sediment through the approach channel and discharge channel, and substantially
reduced the volume of coarse sediment entering the intake structure. Three different
culvert heights were examined in the model consisting of 1 m, 1.5 m, and 2 m. Testing
demonstrated that the intermediate box culvert height of 1.5 m was most effective at
maintaining sediment movement.

Slotted openings were added to the top of the box culvert in the approach channel in an
attempt to draw sediment from along the full length of the sluiceway approach channel
and divert it through the box culvert. Testing demonstrated that the slotted openings did
facilitate sediment scour from along the culvert length; however, the openings also
resulted in a notable decrease in the capacity of the culvert. Based on this, the slotted
openings were not incorporated into the final design of the box culvert.

12

 Culvert

Photo 7 -View looking downstream

showing a box culvert installed within
the approach channel.

Refinement of the Width and Shape of the Approach Channel

A number of refinements to the left and right walls of the approach channel were
developed in the model in an attempt to improve sediment movement through the
approach channel. Specific refinements included reshaping the left bank approach
channel entrance in an attempt to decrease flow separation entering the approach
channel (as shown in Photo 8) and reshaping the left approach channel into an S-
curve in an attempt to further reduce the amount of sediment that accumulated along
the left wall and facilitate the transport of sediment through the box culvert (as shown in
Photo 9). Further refinements to the left and right walls of the approach channel
including increasing the width at the entrance of the approach channel and modifying
the transition to the box culvert.

The width and shape of the approach channel and discharge channel were refined
through the design process to the final arrangement in which the bottom width of the
approach channel converged from 45 m at the entrance to 6 m wide near the upstream
end of the forebay control structure and then maintained at 6 m wide width to the
downstream end of the discharge channel (with only one 6 m wide radial gate within the
sluiceway structure), as shown in Photo 10. Testing indicated that at a river discharge of
800 m3/s with the intake operating at 252 m3/s (with the water level at the tunnel portal
at El. 246 m and the tailwater level at El. 242.3 m), the box culvert performed well at
flushing sediment downstream. However, testing demonstrated that significant
quantities of sediment may deposit on top of the box culvert and within the intake

13

structure at river discharges greater than 300 m3/s as a result of the relatively high
velocities generated in the approach channel.

Photo 8 - View showing the approach Photo 9 View looking downstream

channel operating at a river discharge of showing the approach channel
600 m3/s. operating at a river discharge of
1000 m3/s.

Photo 10 View looking downstream showing the

final approach channel operating at a river discharge
of 900 m3/s with the head difference between the
tunnel portal and the downstream water level of
3.5 m.
14

Modifications to the Sluiceway Discharge Channel

Model testing demonstrated that the initial design arrangement of the sluiceway
discharge channel resulted in sediment deposition at its downstream end (as shown in
Photo 11), which restricted flow through the sluiceway approach channel and
contributed to sediment depositing and blocking the approach channel.

Photo 11 View from above showing flow patterns in the

sluiceway discharge channel. Note the sediment deposition at
the downstream end of the channel.

Testing indicated that narrowing the discharge channel had an initial clearing effect as
the increased channel velocity carried sediment farther downstream (as shown in
Photo 12); however, the clearing of the upstream portion of the discharge channel was
not enough to maintain sufficient transport of sediment through the full length of the
discharge channel at river discharges greater than 600 m3/s due to backwater effects
generated in the downstream river channel.

The addition of the culvert in the discharge channel resulted in an improvement to the
sediment conveyance downstream of the sluice gates. However, sediment still
deposited at the downstream end of the channel and backed up flow in the culverts at a
river discharge of 1000 m3/s. Based on this, the discharge channel was realigned to
include an exit in the main river flow to reduce sediment accumulation at the
downstream end of the box culvert, as shown in Figure 7 and Photo 13.

15

 Photo 12 - View looking upstream

showing the sluiceway discharge channel
at a river discharge of 550 m3/s.

Revised
alignmentof
thedischarge
channel

Figure 7 Plan View showing the revised alignment of the discharge channel

16

 Photo 13 View from above showing

the flow conditions at the exit of the
box culvert at a river discharge of
900 m3/s with the intake operating at
252 m3/s.

The width of the discharge channel was refined through the design process to the final
arrangement in which the bottom width was maintained at 6 m to the downstream end
of the discharge channel (with only one 6 m wide radial gate within the sluiceway
structure). Testing demonstrated that the realigned and narrowed discharge channel
resulted in improved sediment flushing through the approach channel as the Iskut River
flow effectively mobilized sediment at the discharge channel exit.
Operational Changes

Model testing indicated that at a river discharge of 800 m3/s with the intake operating at
252 m3/s, the sluiceway box culvert performed well at flushing sediment downstream.
However, at river discharges ranging from 900 m3/s to 1200 m3/s the water levels
downstream of the control weir increased significantly, which reduced the driving head
and sediment conveyance through the culvert to the point where the culvert would plug.

Testing was conducted by modifying the tailwater level (and maintaining the water level
at the tunnel portal) and also by modifying the water level at the tunnel portal (and
maintaining the river tailwater level) to determine the required differential head for
adequate flushing of the box culvert at river discharges ranging from 900 m3/s to
1200 m3/s. Model testing demonstrated that a minimum head difference between the
tunnel portal and the tailwater of 3.5 m was required to maintain sediment movement
through the culvert for river discharges up to 1200 m3/s. Therefore, it was determined
that for intake operation at river discharges greater than or equal to 900 m3/s, the
minimum head difference at the site will have to be maintained at 3.5 m.

17

Summary

AltaGass Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project is a 195 MW capacity run-of-river

hydroelectric generation plant located on the Iskut River in northwestern British
Columbia. The project will operate at a net head of 86 m and a design flow of 252 m3/s.
Sediment load at the intake site varies from near zero during low winter flows to high
values during the spring-summer snowmelt period and during autumn rainstorm events.
The initial proposed entrance for the approach channel was located along the inside of
a sharp bend in the Iskut River,where sediment deposition normally occurs.

A 1:40 scale mobile-bed physical hydraulic model study was conducted to evaluate the
performance of the Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project intake facilities. A primary focus of
the study was evaluating methods for bypassing sediment to minimize the amount of
sediment that would enter the power tunnel. The physical model study was considered
a key design aid for sediment management given the significant sediment loads
expected at the intake location.

A number of design modifications to the approach channel and discharge channel at the
Forrest Kerr intake facilities were evaluated. Testing demonstrated that the initial
arrangement of the approach channel (with the entrance located downstream of the
confluence with Forrest Kerr Creek) was fairly effective at excluding sediment at river
discharges less than 550 m3/s; however, as the river discharge increased above
550 m3/s, the approach channel and intake structures were inundated with sediment.

Based on these results, the entrance of the sluiceway approach channel was realigned
to a location upstream of the confluence with Forrest Kerr Creek. The width and shape
of the approach channel and discharge channel were then refined through the design
process to the final arrangement in which the bottom width of the approach channel
converged from 45 m at the entrance to 6 m wide near the upstream end of the forebay
control structure and then maintained at 6 m wide width to the downstream end of the
discharge channel (with only one 6 m wide radial gate within the sluiceway structure),
as shown in Figure 8.

The addition of a 1.5 m high box culvert in the approach channel and discharge channel
effectively conveyed coarser bedload sediment through the approach channel and
discharge channel for all river conditions up to 1200 m3/s in which a 3.5 m head
difference between the tunnel portal and tailwater was maintained.

The modifications, as developed in the physical model, were used in finalizing the
design of the facility which is now currently under construction and scheduled to be
online as of July 1, 2014. Photo 14 shows an aerial view of the project area during
construction.

18

Figure 8 - General Arrangement (Final)

Power
TunnelPortal
Entrance

Approach
Channel

Photo 14- Project Area During Construction

19

Acknowledgements

The Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project Physical Hydraulic Model Study investigations
were conducted by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in conjunction with the final design
engineers Hatch Ltd. The authors wish to recognize the funding provided by the
developer AltaGas Ltd. In addition, the authors wish to acknowledge the acceptance of
all organizations for the publication of this paper.

Authors

Nancy Sims, P.Eng., M.Sc.(Eng.) started as a hydraulic engineer for Northwest

Hydraulic Consultants in 1999, and became an Associate of the firm in 2010. Her areas
of expertise include hydraulic design, physical modeling, and numerical modeling. She
has been involved in numerous assignments ranging from small run-of-river to major
hydroelectric developments, navigational studies, intake structures, bypass systems,
influent pump stations, drop structures, and dam spillway projects.

Don Murray, P.Eng., M.Sc. is a Project Manager and the Hydrotechnical Discipline
Practice Lead Engineer at the Hatch Ltd. office in Vancouver, BC. having responsibility
for hydrotechnical engineering services. He has more than 40 years of experience in
major electric utility resource projects. He has worked on some 80 hydroelectric
projects ranging in size from 70 kW to 1800 MW. His experience ranges from initial
feasibility investigation through to generation planning, energy evaluation, final design,
procurement, and preparation of construction drawings and technical specifications.

Amir Alavi, P.Eng.,M.A.Sc. is a senior Hydrotechnical Engineer (water resources) at

Hatch and has more than ten years of experience in water resource projects. He has
extensive experience in hydraulic numerical modeling (CFD) using FLOW3D software
as well as studies and design implementation of hydro power facilities, irrigation and
water supply projects. He has also developed models for hydro power generation
optimization simulation projects. He received his Masters Degree from UBC in Hydro-
technical Engineering in 2004. He has authored four technical articles and for one of
them received an award from the World Energy Committee.

Brian Hughes, P.Eng.,M.A.Sc. has been a hydraulic engineer for Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants since 1988, and a Principal of the firm since 1994. He has acquired strong
managerial and technical knowledge in the areas of hydraulic design, physical and
numerical hydraulic modeling, and river hydraulics. Physical and numerical modeling
experience includes hydroelectric developments, fish passage projects, spillway
design/rehabilitation, a variety of river processes, navigation and sediment transport
investigations, and intake and pump station design studies. Since joining NHC,
Mr. Hughes has participated in over 200 models. Mr. Hughes is currently the Director of
NHCs modeling operations and sits on the firms Board of Directors.

20